On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:36:43 +0200
peterz@infradead.org wrote:

> > Yeah, that's fine. You don't have any sched_fifo_high() ?  
> 
> Thanks! and no.
> 
> I'll go write a Changelog and add it to tip/sched/fifo, so that
> hopefully, sfr can stop complaining about this build fail ;-)
> 
> I've even argued we should rename fifo_low() to something else, but
> failed to come up with a sensible name. The intended case is for when
> you want something above normal but don't particularly care about RT at
> all.
> 
> The thing is, once you start adding priorities, even low,med,high, we're
> back to where we were. And the whole argument is that the kernel cannot
> set priorities in any sensible fashion.

Actually, I was wondering about a "sched_fifo_benchmark()" used
specifically for internal testing, where you *want* to disrupt the
system. Perhaps have it depend on CONFIG_DEBUG to at least scare
people away from using it for normal production code. Or make it print
a nasty banner like trace_printk() does. That worked pretty well at
keeping people from using it ;-)

-- Steve