lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.068 / U:0.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site