Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [tip:sched/fifo 44/45] ERROR: modpost: "sched_setscheduler" undefined! | From | Dietmar Eggemann <> | Date | Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:23:27 +0200 |
| |
On 21/07/2020 12:13, Qais Yousef wrote: > On 07/21/20 10:36, peterz@infradead.org wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 06:19:43PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 23:49:18 +0200 >>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Steve, would this work for you, or would you prefer renaming the >>>> parameters as well? >>>> >>> >>> 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. > > Agreed. I am worried about in-kernel users setting random uclamp values too.
Do we really have to restrict in-kernel user?
And avoiding module uclamp abuse is covered by 616d91b68cd5 ("sched: Remove sched_setscheduler*() EXPORTs").
> This series should do most of the work but there are more pieces needed on-top. > > From what I see we still need to move the sched_setscheduler() from > include/linux/sched.h to kernel/sched/sched.h. And sched_setattr() too. The > latter has a single user in kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c to create a deadline > task. I think that can be easily wrapped with a similar sched_set_dl() > function and exported instead.
But DL does not have the same issue like the FIFO/RR when it comes to resource management. Not sure if we have to restrict in-kernel user.
[...]
| |