From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933643AbbEEQuH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 5 May 2015 12:50:07 -0400
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:50990 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753841AbbEEQuC (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 5 May 2015 12:50:02 -0400
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 18:50:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Ronny Meeus <ronny.meeus@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Handle priority boosted tasks proper in
 setscheduler()
In-Reply-To: <20150505124244.1f154dc9@gandalf.local.home>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1505051847230.4225@nanos>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1505051806060.4225@nanos> <20150505122920.7861907d@gandalf.local.home> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1505051830440.4225@nanos> <20150505124244.1f154dc9@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001,URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 5 May 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2015 18:31:20 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 5 May 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > I got pulled onto other things so I never finished it, but one thing
> > > that worried me about this fix is this:
> > > 
> > > 	T1 - FIFO policy (prio = 10)
> > > 	  lock(rtmutex);
> > > 
> > > 	T2 (prio = 20)
> > > 	  lock(rtmutex)
> > > 	    boost T1 (prio = 20)
> > > 
> > >         TI (prio = 20)
> > > 	  sys_sched_setscheduler(prio = 30)
> > > 	  TI (prio = 30)
> > > 
> > > 	T1 (prio = 30)
> > > 	  sys_sched_setscheduler(SCHED_OTHER)
> > > 	  new_effective_prio = 20, oldprio = 30
> > > 
> > > Before the code stopped at the rt_mutex_check_prio(), but now it
> > > continues. Will having the policy change cause problems here?
> > 
> > No, because it stays effective in the FIFO domain.
> > 
> 
> Ah, the policy passed in isn't used, so we are safe. But, but I also
> found that we still call __setscheduler(), which does:
> 
> 	p->prio = normal_prio();
> 
> Isn't that going to null out the boosting?

Crap. Yes, I missed that. So __setscheduler() assumes that there is no
boosting going on. So we need:

   p->prio = effective_prio(p);

there instead.

Thanks,

	tglx