On 07/03/10 23:37, John Kacur wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Carsten Emde <C.Emde@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If not in SMP testing mode, the priority may go below 1, if the specified >> priority is lower than the number of threads, e.g. >> # cyclictest -p2 -t3 >> T: 0 (21970) P: 2 [..] >> T: 1 (21971) P: 1 [..] >> T: 2 (21972) P: 0 [..] >> >> Do not allow priority to go below 1. >> >> Signed-off-by: Carsten Emde <C.Emde@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Index: rt-tests/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c >> =================================================================== >> --- rt-tests.orig/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c >> +++ rt-tests/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c >> @@ -1304,7 +1304,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) >> } >> >> par->prio = priority; >> - if (!sameprio) >> + if (priority > 1 && !sameprio) >> priority--; >> if (priority && policy <= 1) par->policy = SCHED_FIFO; >> else if (priority && policy == 2) par->policy = SCHED_RR; >> >> -- > > I'm not sure about this, why not allow a priority below 1? The code > below properly sets the third thead to SCHED_OTHER. > I could imagine wanting to test that too. If you don't want to go > below 1 then just set a higher prio, p3 in the scenario you > showed. Maybe I'm misreading and misunderstanding the patch ... but I believe the if statement should say: if (priority > 0 && !sameprio) priority--; Just to avoid the situation the commit log says, priority to go below 0. kind regards, David Sommerseth -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
