Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-208790-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:21:41 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@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>, Metin Kaya <metin.kaya@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sched/rt: Clean up usage of rt_task()
Message-ID: <20240610192141.dibvhzrvx7hacvd7@airbuntu>
References: <20240604144228.1356121-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <20240604144228.1356121-2-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <b298bca1-190f-48a2-8d2c-58d54b879c72@redhat.com>
 <20240605093246.4h0kCR67@linutronix.de>
 <20240605132454.cjo4sjtybaeyeuze@airbuntu>
 <af031e33-74db-40ba-abdd-ef1bf32e4caf@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <af031e33-74db-40ba-abdd-ef1bf32e4caf@redhat.com>

On 06/05/24 16:07, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 6/5/24 15:24, Qais Yousef wrote:
> >>> But rt is a shortened version of realtime, and so it is making *it less*
> >>> clear that we also have DL here.
> >> Can SCHED_DL be considered a real-time scheduling class as in opposite
> >> to SCHED_BATCH for instance? Due to its requirements it fits for a real
> >> time scheduling class, right?
> >> And RT (as in real time) already includes SCHED_RR and SCHED_FIFO.
> > Yeah I think the usage of realtime to cover both makes sense. I followed your
> > precedence with task_is_realtime().
> > 
> > Anyway. If people really find this confusing, what would make sense is to split
> > them and ask users to call rt_task() and dl_task() explicitly without this
> > wrapper. I personally like it better with the wrapper. But happy to follow the
> > crowd.
> 
> For me, doing dl_ things it is better to keep them separate, so I can
> easily search for dl_ specific checks.
> 
> rt_or_dl_task(p);

I posted a new version with this suggestion as the top patch so that it can be
shredded more :-)

Thanks for having a look.


Cheers

--
Qais Yousef