Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:41:51 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Cc:     mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix FIFO-99 abuse
Message-ID: <20190802124151.GG2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190801111348.530242235@infradead.org>
 <20190801131707.5rpyydznnhz474la@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20190802093244.GF2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190802102611.54sae3onftck5fye@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190802102611.54sae3onftck5fye@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:26:12AM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:

> Yes a somewhat enforced default makes more sense to me. I assume you no longer
> want to put the kthreads that just need to be above OTHER in FIFO-1?

I'm not sure, maybe, there's not that many of them, but possibly we add
another interface for them.

> While at it, since we will cram all kthreads on the same priority, isn't
> a SCHED_RR a better choice now? I think the probability of a clash is pretty
> low, but when it happens, shouldn't we try to guarantee some fairness?

It's never been a problem, and aside from these few straggler threads,
everybody has effectively been there already for years, so if it were a
problem someone would've complained by now.

Also; like said before, the admin had better configure.

Also also, RR-SMP is actually broken (and nobody has cared enough to
bother fixing it).