Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering | From | Albert Cahalan <> | Date | 05 Aug 2004 05:48:19 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 02:57, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net> wrote: > > > Are these going to be numbered consecutively, or might they better be > > done like the task state? [...] > > this is quite unnecessary at the moment since p->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO is a > good enough check - but whenever the way p->prio works is changed it > will be easy to introduce a PF_REALTIME flag that is set/cleared in > setscheduler(). (instead of playing around with p->policy.)
That was one example. I'm guessing that one might want to test for other policy groupings, like these:
SCHED_RR | SCHED_ISO SCHED_BATCH | SCHED_NORMAL SCHED_SPORADIC | SCHED_NORMAL SCHED_EDF | SCHED_FIFO
If that's certainly not going to be useful, even in the future, then of course there's no reason to allocate the values as bits.
In any case, it's a user ABI issue, and I'd like to see what the allocations are going to be. Perhaps I should send in a patch that just allocates a few of these...?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |