Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:21:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:21:38 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:7440 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:21:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:19:11 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Davidsen To: Chris Wright cc: Stephen Baker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux Kernel Patch; setpriority In-Reply-To: <20020327143231.A19240@figure1.int.wirex.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1170656797-873103368-1017350351=:18779" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --1170656797-873103368-1017350351=:18779 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Rather than expect people who have been following this to reread I'll put this here. I believe the capability of nice(2) setting and restoring is (a) very seldom useful given the new scheduler, and (b) can be done with a bit of effort and no assult on SUS by doing the nice work in a nice thread. Code is attached. On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Chris Wright wrote: > * Stephen Baker (stbaker@cisco.com) wrote: > > > > This patch will allow a process or thread to changes it's priority > > dynamically based on it's capabilities. In our case we wanted to use > > threads with Linux. To have true priorities we need root to use > > SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR; in many case root access is not allowed but we > > still wanted priorities. So we started using setpriority to change a > > threads priority. Now we used nice values from 19 to 0 which did not > > require root access. In some cases a thread need to raise it's nice > > level and this would fail. I also saw a note man renice(8) that said > > this bug exists. > > hmm, SUS v3 seems to disagree. > > "Only a process with appropriate privileges can lower its nice value." > > and with this patch setpriority(2) is now inconsistent with nice(2) > (albeit i don't know how much longer that interface will persist in arch > independent portion of the kernel based on the comments surrounding it). -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. --1170656797-873103368-1017350351=:18779 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; name="nice.c" Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: LyogdHJ5IGNoYW5naW5nIG5pY2UoMikgZm9yIGEgc2luZ2xlIHRocmVhZCAq Lw0KDQojaW5jbHVkZSA8c3RkaW8uaD4NCiNpbmNsdWRlIDx1bmlzdGQuaD4N CiNpbmNsdWRlIDxwdGhyZWFkLmg+DQoNCmludCBwaWQ7DQp2b2lkIHBhcnQx KGludCAqKTsNCnB0aHJlYWRfbXV0ZXhfdCBwcmludF9sb2NrID0gUFRIUkVB RF9NVVRFWF9JTklUSUFMSVpFUjsNCiNkZWZpbmUgTUFYX0xPT1AJCTEwMA0K DQptYWluKGludCBhcmdjLCBjaGFyICphcmd2W10pDQp7DQoJaW50IGosIHN0 YXQ7DQoJdm9sYXRpbGUgaW50IGkgPSAwOw0KCXB0aHJlYWRfdCB0aHJkMTsN Cg0KCXBpZCA9IGdldHBpZCgpOw0KCWZwcmludGYoc3RkZXJyLCAicGFyZW50 IHBpZDogJWRcbiIsIHBpZCk7DQoJcHRocmVhZF9jcmVhdGUoJnRocmQxLCBO VUxMLCAodm9pZCAqKXBhcnQxLCAodm9pZCAqKSZpKTsNCgkvKiBub3RlIHRo YXQgSSBhbSBub3QgZG9pbmcgYSBkYW1uIHRoaW5nIGhlcmUgKi8NCglwdGhy ZWFkX2pvaW4odGhyZDEsIE5VTEwpOw0KDQoJZnByaW50ZihzdGRlcnIsICJO b3JtYWwgdGVybWluYXRpb25cbiIpOw0KCWV4aXQoMCk7DQp9DQoNCnZvaWQN CnBhcnQxKGludCAqaXgpDQp7DQoJLyogZG8gb25lIHBzIGJlZm9yZSBuaWNl KDIpIGNhbGwgKi8NCglzeXN0ZW0oInBzIGwiKTsNCgkvKiBub3cgYmUgbmlj ZSBhbmQgdHJ5IGFnYWluICovDQoJZnByaW50ZihzdGRlcnIsICJcbi0tPiBu aWNlXG4iKTsNCgluaWNlKDYpOw0KCXN5c3RlbSgicHMgbCIpOw0KfQ0K --1170656797-873103368-1017350351=:18779-- - 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/