Re: [PATCH v2] sched/rt: Clean up usage of rt_task()

[Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>]

On 05/29/24 10:29, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2024-05-27 18:26:50 [+0100], Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > In order to be PI-boosted you need to acquire a lock and the only lock
> > > you can sleep while acquired without generating a warning is a mutex_t
> > > (or equivalent sleeping lock) on PREEMPT_RT. 
> > 
> > Note we care about the behavior for !PREEMPT_RT. PI issues are important there
> > too. I assume the fact the PREEMPT_RT changes the locks behavior is what you're
> > referring to here and not applicable to normal case.
> 
> So for !PREEMPT_RT you need a rtmutex for PI. RCU and i2c is using it
> within the kernel and this shouldn't go via the `slack' API.
> 
> The FUTEX API on the other hand is a different story and it might
> matter. So you have one task running SCHED_OTHER and acquiring a lock in
> userspace (pthread_mutex_t, PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT). Another task running
> at SCHED_FIFO/ RR/ DL would also acquire that lock, block on it and
> then inherit its priority.
> This is the point where the former task has a different policy vs
> priority considering PI-boosting. You could argue that the task
> shouldn't sleep or invoke anything possible sleeping with a timeout > 0
> because it is using an important lock.
> But then it is userland and has the freedom to do whatever it wants you
> know…

Yes..

> 
> So it might be better to forget what I said and keeping the current

Okay I'll drop the patch then in next posting.

> behaviour. But then it is insistent which matters only in the RT case.
> Puh. Any sched folks regarding policy?

I am not sure I understood you here. Could you rephrase please?