Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S968951AbXEIGdw (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 02:33:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S966706AbXEIGdo (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 02:33:44 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:58816 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966203AbXEIGdn (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 02:33:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 15:31:27 +0900 Message-ID: <878xbyy0cg.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> From: Satoru Takeuchi To: Nick Piggin Cc: Satoru Takeuchi , vatsa@in.ibm.com, Rusty Russell , Linux Kernel , Zwane Mwaikambo , Nathan Lynch , Joel Schopp , Ashok Raj , Heiko Carstens , Gautham R Shenoy , Ingo Molnar , paulmck@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [BUG] cpu-hotplug: Can't offline the CPU with naughty realtime processes In-Reply-To: <46411A36.2050609@yahoo.com.au> References: <87bqgxrlky.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> <1178545373.28438.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <877irkrq8a.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> <1178593345.28438.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <874pmoro1c.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> <20070508041033.GB25030@in.ibm.com> <87irb3g4zt.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> <20070508164850.GS7311@in.ibm.com> <87ejlqg77m.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> <46411A36.2050609@yahoo.com.au> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.8 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Shij=F2?=) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4649 Lines: 114 At Wed, 09 May 2007 10:47:50 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > > At Tue, 8 May 2007 22:18:50 +0530, > > Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > > >>On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:16:06PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > >> > >>>Sometimes I wonder at prio_array. It has 140 entries(from 0 to 139), > >>>and the meaning of each entry is as follows, I think. > >>> > >>>+-----------+-----------------------------------------------+ > >>>| index | usage | > >>>+-----------+-----------------------------------------------+ > >>>| 0 - 98 | RT processes are here. They are in the entry | > >>>| | whose index is 99 - sched_priority. | > >> > >>>From sched.h: > >> > >>/* > >> * Priority of a process goes from 0..MAX_PRIO-1, valid RT > >> * priority is 0..MAX_RT_PRIO-1, and SCHED_NORMAL/SCHED_BATCH > >> * tasks are in the range MAX_RT_PRIO..MAX_PRIO-1. > >> > >>so shouldn't the index for RT processes be 0 - 99, given that > >>MAX_RT_PRIO = 100? > > > > > > However `man sched_priority' says... > > > > > > 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. The system calls > > sched_get_priority_min() and sched_get_priority_max() can > > be used to find out the valid priority range for a > > scheduling policy in a portable way on all POSIX.1-2001 > > conforming systems. > > > > > > and see the kernel/sched.c ... > > > > > > int sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p, int policy, > > struct sched_param *param) > > { > > ... > > /* > > * Valid priorities for SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR are > > * 1..MAX_USER_RT_PRIO-1, valid priority for SCHED_NORMAL and > > * SCHED_BATCH is 0. > > */ > > if (param->sched_priority < 0 || > > (p->mm && param->sched_priority > MAX_USER_RT_PRIO-1) || > > (!p->mm && param->sched_priority > MAX_RT_PRIO-1)) > > return -EINVAL; > > if (is_rt_policy(policy) != (param->sched_priority != 0)) > > return -EINVAL; > > ... > > } > > > > > > So, if I want to set the rt_prio of a kernel_thread, we can't use this > > entry unless set t->prio to 99 directly. I don't know whether we are > > allowed to write such code bipassing sched_setscheduler(). In addition, > > even if kernel_thread can use this index , I can't understand it's usage. > > It can only be used by kernel, but its priority is LOWER than any real > > time thread. > > > > If the rule can be changed to the following... > > > > +-----------+-----------------------------------------------+ > > | index | usage | > > +-----------+-----------------------------------------------+ > > | 0 | RT processes are here. Only kernel can use | > > | | this entry. | > > +-----------+-----------------------------------------------+ > > | 1 - 99 | RT processes are here. They are in the entry | > > | | whose index is 99 - sched_priority. | > > +-----------+-----------------------------------------------+ > > | 100 - 139 | Ordinally processes are here. They are in the | > > | | entry whose index is (nice+120) +/- 5 | > > +-----------+-----------------------------------------------+ > > > > ... there will be an entry only used by kernel and its priority is HIGHER > > than any user process, and I'll get happy :-) > > We've seen the same problem with other stop_machine_run sites in the kernel. > module remove was one. > > Reserving the top priority slot for stop machine (and migration thread, I > guess) isn't a bad idea. For the time being, I'll try to write the patch implement this idea after submitting stop_machine_run() fix code. Probably I'll post RFC in one week. Thanks, Satoru > > -- > SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. > - > 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/ - 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/