On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 02:33:29PM +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote: > On Thursday 04 October 2007, Jacob wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:29:56AM +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote: > > > [...] > > > And yes, i consider it a bug that top and other software report the > > > SCHED_FIFO prio as negative values. Where does that come from? Does the > > > prio already get listed as negative in /proc? Or do they simply do it to > > > separate the SCHED_FIFO threads from SCHED_OTHER threads? Anyways POSIX > > > speaks of positive SCHED_FIFO prios in the range 1..99 afaik.. > > > > Hmmm, POSIX talks about priorities in the range of > > min .. max, > > where > > min = sched_get_priority_min(alg) > > max = sched_get_priority_max(alg) > > max - min >= 32, if alg == SCHED_FIFO or alg == SCHED_RR > > and alg being the the scheduling algorithm (like SCHED_FIFO, ...) > > > > Under Linux (according to 'man sched_get_priority_min') the follwoing > > ranges apply: > > SCHED_FIFO : min = 1, max = 99 > > SCHED_RR : min = 1, max = 99 > > SCHED_OTHER : min = 0, max = 0 > > > Ok thanks for clearing this up :) So in principle there actually even might be > partially (or only) negative prios for SCHED_FIFO processes. I've wondered about this too. I haven't found anything in the Web and in my (rather old) copy of O'Reillys "POSIX.4" book explicitely requiering a positive value (ok, I only searched for 15 minutes), and I do not have a copy of the current spec. But since sched_get_priority_min/max(alg) return -1 if alg is invalid, I wouldn't expect it. Maybe someone with access to the current spec could clarify this? ;-) Jacob _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
