On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 01:50:39PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 07-Nov 13:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 06:32:56PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > 
> > > @@ -50,11 +52,13 @@
> > >  #define SCHED_FLAG_RESET_ON_FORK	0x01
> > >  #define SCHED_FLAG_RECLAIM		0x02
> > >  #define SCHED_FLAG_DL_OVERRUN		0x04
> > > -#define SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP		0x08
> > > +#define SCHED_FLAG_TUNE_POLICY		0x08
> > > +#define SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP		0x10
> > 
> > That seems to suggest you want to do this patch first, but you didn't..
> 
> I've kept it here just to better highlight this change, suggested by
> Juri, since we was not entirely sure you are fine with it...
> 
> If you think it's ok adding a SCHED_FLAG_TUNE_POLICY behavior to the
> sched_setattr syscall, I can certainly squash into the previous patch,
> which gives more context on why we need it.

I'm fine with the idea I think. It's the details I worry about. Which
fields in particular are not updated with this. Are flags?

Also, I'm not too keen on the name; since it explicitly does not modify
the policy and its related parameters, so TUNE_POLICY is actively wrong.

But the thing that confused me most is how fiddled the numbers to fit
this before UTIL_CLAMP.

> Since we are at that, are we supposed to document some{where,how}
> these API changes ?

I'm pretty sure there's a manpage somewhere... SCHED_SETATTR(2) seems to
exist on my machine. So that wants updates.