On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:22 AM Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 9:52 AM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 01:00:00PM -0800, Nathan Huckleberry wrote: > > > This sounds fine to me. How do you feel about a config flag to change > > > the default WQ_HIGHPRI scheduler policy and a sysfs node to update the > > > policy per workqueue? > > > > Yeah, sounds fine to me. > > > > Thanks. > > > Hi Tejun, > If with the kernel config option, every WQ_HIGHPRI is elevated to > sched_fifo_low, wouldn't that be kind of defeating the purpose? Having > another class for even more urgent work is better in my opinion. I agree, however most of the users of WQ_HIGHPRI that are relevant to Android would probably have SCHED_FIFO enabled anyway. I can write the patches such that WQ_HIGHPRI selects one of two internal WQ flags. If using SCHED_FIFO for all workqueues is problematic, Android can consider using the internal WQ flags directly and carry those one-line patches in the Android tree. Thanks, Huck > > Thanks, > Sandeep. > > -- > > tejun
