On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:32:38AM +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:58:51PM -0400, Phil Auld wrote: > > > > Hi Qais, > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:41:12AM +0100 Qais Yousef wrote: > > > rt_task() checks if a task has RT priority. But depends on your > > > dictionary, this could mean it belongs to RT class, or is a 'realtime' > > > task, which includes RT and DL classes. > > > > > > Since this has caused some confusion already on discussion [1], it > > > seemed a clean up is due. > > > > > > I define the usage of rt_task() to be tasks that belong to RT class. > > > Make sure that it returns true only for RT class and audit the users and > > > replace them with the new realtime_task() which returns true for RT and > > > DL classes - the old behavior. Introduce similar realtime_prio() to > > > create similar distinction to rt_prio() and update the users. > > > > I think making the difference clear is good. However, I think rt_task() is > > a better name. We have dl_task() still. And rt tasks are things managed > > by rt.c, basically. Not realtime.c :) I know that doesn't work for > > deadline.c > > and dl_ but this change would be the reverse of that pattern. > > It's going to be a mess either way around, but I think rt_task() and > dl_task() being distinct is more sensible than the current overlap. >
Yes, indeed. My point was just to call it rt_task() still. Cheers, Phil > > > Move MAX_DL_PRIO to prio.h so it can be used in the new definitions. > > > > > > Document the functions to make it more obvious what is the difference > > > between them. PI-boosted tasks is a factor that must be taken into > > > account when choosing which function to use. > > > > > > Rename task_is_realtime() to task_has_realtime_policy() as the old name > > > is confusing against the new realtime_task(). > > realtime_task_policy() perhaps? > --
