From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Michael Pratt <mcpratt@pm.me>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] sched/syscalls: Allow setting niceness using sched_param struct
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 13:13:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240916111323.GX4723@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240916050741.24206-1-mcpratt@pm.me>
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 05:08:49AM +0000, Michael Pratt wrote:
> From userspace, spawning a new process with, for example,
> posix_spawn(), only allows the user to work with
> the scheduling priority value defined by POSIX
> in the sched_param struct.
>
> However, sched_setparam() and similar syscalls lead to
> __sched_setscheduler() which rejects any new value
> for the priority other than 0 for non-RT schedule classes,
> a behavior kept since Linux 2.6 or earlier.
Right, and the current behaviour is entirely in-line with the POSIX
specs.
I realize this might be a pain, but why should be change this spec
conforming and very long standing behaviour?
Worse, you're proposing a nice ABI that is entirely different from the
normal [-20,19] range.
Why do you feel this is the best way forward? Would not adding
POSIX_SPAWN_SETSCHEDATTR be a more future proof mechanism?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-16 11:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-16 5:08 Michael Pratt
2024-09-16 11:13 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2024-09-16 19:23 ` Michael Pratt
2024-09-16 19:48 ` Michael Pratt
2024-09-25 3:35 ` Michael Pratt
2024-10-07 0:48 ` Michael Pratt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240916111323.GX4723@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcpratt@pm.me \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®