From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758733AbZELLFX (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 07:05:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751834AbZELLFH (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 07:05:07 -0400 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.28]:32124 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751174AbZELLFF convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 07:05:05 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=NvIzkfAqZJAx0VzmilSUmPShCqvt0B9fkEqlGGfv4zyMyEnZV3mkUqys4BoNDD3p5+ h9/fVnf8af5K2H5T8KUZcB2KvKaxK7eolHoVCchodj6h+UWFtUNHTvNKwZ8udyRLg7Bv KHPb295uB0gckr7TJneHR1De83DXLE+cs9Yg0= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090512094210.GD32292@elte.hu> References: <1242117459.31161.11.camel@centos51> <1242119738.11251.322.camel@twins> <20090512094210.GD32292@elte.hu> Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:05:06 +0900 Message-ID: <49b7c2350905120405w3591a92bj265dff000929a928@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH]sched: fix typo in sched-rt-group.txt file From: GeunSik Lim To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel , linux-rt-users , tglx , williams Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2009/5/12 Ingo Molnar : > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:37 +0900, GeunSik Lim wrote: >> > >> > >> > Dear Ingo, >> > >> > I found typo about the range of static priority ( = realtime priority ) >> > in "./Documentation/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt" file. >> > >> > If I don't understand static priority levels, Correct me. >> >> Right, that 'confusion' stems from the fact that our in-kernel priority >> lists do consider all 140 priorities. >> >> The patch looks good though. >> >> > commit d6af702008117ca489a2f5476239d1688a517e98 >> > Author: GeunSik,Lim >> > Date:   Tue May 12 17:20:32 2009 +0900 >> > >> >     sched: fix typo in sched-rt-group.txt file >> > >> >     Fix typo about static priority's range. >> >      Kernel Space priority: 0   to 99   --> User Space RT priority 99 to 0 >> >      Kernel Space priority: 100 to 139  --> User Space nice -20 to 19 >> > >> >     Signed-off-by: GeunSik Lim >> > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt >> > index 5ba4d3f..1537146 100644 >> > --- a/Documentation/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt >> > +++ b/Documentation/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt >> > @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ get their allocated time. >> > >> >  Implementing SCHED_EDF might take a while to complete. Priority Inheritance is >> >  the biggest challenge as the current linux PI infrastructure is geared towards >> > -the limited static priority levels 0-139. With deadline scheduling you need to >> > +the limited static priority levels 0-99. With deadline scheduling you need to > > SCHED_FIFO goes from 1 to 99. So it's either 0-98 or 1-99. From > sched_setscheduler(2): > >       Processes scheduled under one of  the  real-time  policies  (SCHED_FIFO, >       SCHED_RR) have a sched_priority value in the range 1 (low) to 99 (high). > >        Ingo > Thank you for explanation about userspace rt priority's range like sched_setscheduler(2). Processes scheduled with SCHED_OTHER (or SCHED_BATCH) must be assigned the static priority 0. Processes scheduled under SCHED_FIFO (or SCHED_RR) can have a static priority in the range 1 to 99. So, I think that the below summary is right. * Kernel Space priority: 0(high) to 99(low) --> User Space RT priority 99(high) to 0(low) Is it incorrect? -- Regards, GeunSik Lim -- 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/