From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: Clean up usage of rt_task()
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 11:31:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240515103118.qc76v55x4ylqhd52@airbuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240515083238.GA40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 05/15/24 10:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:58:51PM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> >
> > Hi Qais,
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:41:12AM +0100 Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > rt_task() checks if a task has RT priority. But depends on your
> > > dictionary, this could mean it belongs to RT class, or is a 'realtime'
> > > task, which includes RT and DL classes.
> > >
> > > Since this has caused some confusion already on discussion [1], it
> > > seemed a clean up is due.
> > >
> > > I define the usage of rt_task() to be tasks that belong to RT class.
> > > Make sure that it returns true only for RT class and audit the users and
> > > replace them with the new realtime_task() which returns true for RT and
> > > DL classes - the old behavior. Introduce similar realtime_prio() to
> > > create similar distinction to rt_prio() and update the users.
> >
> > I think making the difference clear is good. However, I think rt_task() is
> > a better name. We have dl_task() still. And rt tasks are things managed
> > by rt.c, basically. Not realtime.c :) I know that doesn't work for deadline.c
> > and dl_ but this change would be the reverse of that pattern.
>
> It's going to be a mess either way around, but I think rt_task() and
> dl_task() being distinct is more sensible than the current overlap.
Judging by some of the users I've seen, I think there were some users not
expecting they're not distinct as they were checking for !dl_task() &&
!rt_task() which I replaced with !realtime_task(). Similar users checking for
dl_prio() and rt_prio() in places, and others using rt_prio() to encompass
dl_prio(). There were BUG_ON(!rt_task())/WARN_ON(!rt_prio()) in rt.c which
I don't think it in intended to encompass dl there.
>
> > > Move MAX_DL_PRIO to prio.h so it can be used in the new definitions.
> > >
> > > Document the functions to make it more obvious what is the difference
> > > between them. PI-boosted tasks is a factor that must be taken into
> > > account when choosing which function to use.
> > >
> > > Rename task_is_realtime() to task_has_realtime_policy() as the old name
> > > is confusing against the new realtime_task().
>
> realtime_task_policy() perhaps?
Better yes. Updated.
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-15 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-14 23:41 [PATCH] sched/rt: Clean up usage of rt_task() Qais Yousef
2024-05-14 23:58 ` Phil Auld
2024-05-15 8:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-05-15 10:31 ` Qais Yousef [this message]
2024-05-15 11:20 ` Phil Auld
2024-05-15 12:06 ` Qais Yousef
2024-05-15 12:50 ` Phil Auld
2024-05-15 17:12 ` Qais Yousef
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=20240515103118.qc76v55x4ylqhd52@airbuntu \
--to=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).