[widening the CC] Hello Andrea, On 01/20/2016 06:48 AM, Andrea Parri wrote: > Dear Michael, > > I point out that the semantics of sched_setscheduler(2) for RT threads > indicated in sched(7) and, in particular, in > > "A call to sched_setscheduler(2), sched_setparam(2), or > sched_setattr(2) will put the SCHED_FIFO (or SCHED_RR) thread > identified by pid at the start of the list if it was runnable." > > does not "reflect" the current implementation of this syscall(s) that, in > turn; based on the source, I think a more appropriate description of this > semantics would be: > > "... the effect on its position in the thread list depends on the > direction > of the modification, as follows: > > a. if the priority is raised, the thread becomes the tail of the > thread list. > b. if the priority is unchanged, the thread does not change position > in > the thread list. > c. if the priority is lowered, the thread becomes the head of the > thread > list." > > (copied from > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_08_04_01 > ). > > Regards, > Andrea Parri > So, I did some testing, and can confirm that the above is the behavior on Linux for changes to scheduling priorities for RT processes. (My tests consisted of creating a multithreaded process where all threads are confined to the same CPU with taskset(), and each thread is in a CPU-bound loop. I then maipulated their priorities with chrt(1) and watched the CPU time being consumed with ps(1).) Back in SUSv2 there was this text: [[ 6. If a thread whose policy or priority has been modified is a running thread or is runnable, it then becomes the tail of the thread list for its new priority. ]] And certainly Linux used to behave this way. I remember testing it, and when one looks at the Linux 2.2 source code for example, one can see that there is a call to move_first_runqueue() in this case. At some point, things changed, and I have not investigated exactly where that change occurred (but I imagine it was quite a long time ago). Looking at SUSv4, let's expand the range of your quote, since point 7 is interesting. Here's text from Section 2.8.4 "Process Scheduling" in POSIX.1-2008/SUSv4 TC2: [[ 7. If a thread whose policy or priority has been modified other than by pthread_setschedprio() is a running thread or is runnable, it then becomes the tail of the thread list for its new priority. 8. If a thread whose priority has been modified by pthread_setschedprio() is a running thread or is runnable, the effect on its position in the thread list depends on the direction of the modification, as follows: a. If the priority is raised, the thread becomes the tail of the thread list. b. If the priority is unchanged, the thread does not change position in the thread list. c. If the priority is lowered, the thread becomes the head of the thread list. ]] (Note that the preceding points mention variously sched_setscheduler(), sched_setsparam(), and pthread_setschedprio(), so that the mention of just pthread_setschedprio() in points 7 and 8 is significant.) Now, since chrt(1) uses sched_setscheduler(), rather than pthread_setschedprio(), then arguably the Linux behavior is a violation of POSIX. (Indeed, buried in the man-pages source, I find that I many years ago wrote the comment: In 2.2.x and 2.4.x, the thread is placed at the front of the queue In 2.0.x, the Right Thing happened: the thread went to the back -- MTK But the Linux behavior seems reasonable to me and I'm inclined to just document it (see the patch below). But I CCed Peter and Thomas in case they have some thoughts on the topic. Cheers, Michael diff --git a/man7/sched.7 b/man7/sched.7 index ea865b1d5..198e267b7 100644 --- a/man7/sched.7 +++ b/man7/sched.7 @@ -165,18 +165,38 @@ blocked again. When a blocked \fBSCHED_FIFO\fP thread becomes runnable, it will be inserted at the end of the list for its priority. .IP 3) -A call to +If a call to .BR sched_setscheduler (2), .BR sched_setparam (2), +.BR sched_setattr (2), +.BR pthread_setschedparam (3), or -.BR sched_setattr (2) -will put the -\fBSCHED_FIFO\fP thread identified by -\fIpid\fP at the start of the list if it was runnable. -As a consequence, it may preempt the currently running thread if -it has the same priority. -(POSIX.1 specifies that the thread should go to the end -of the list.) +.BR pthread_setschedprio (3) +changes the priority of the running or runnable +.B SCHED_FIFO +thread identified by +.I pid +the effect on the thread's position in the list depends on +the direction of the change to threads priority: +.RS +.IP \(bu 3 +If the thread's priority is raised, +it is placed at the end of the list for its new priority. +As a consequence, +it may preempt a currently running thread with the same priority. +.IP \(bu +If the thread's priority is unchanged, +its position in the run list is unchanged. +.IP \(bu +If the thread's priority is lowered, +it is placed at the front of the list for its new priority. +.RE +.IP +According to POSIX.1-2008, +changes to a thread's priority (or policy) using any mechanism other than +.BR pthread_setschedprio (3) +should result in the thread being placed at the end of +the list for its priority. .\" In 2.2.x and 2.4.x, the thread is placed at the front of the queue .\" In 2.0.x, the Right Thing happened: the thread went to the back -- MTK .IP 4) -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
