As discussed with Tejun Heo and Roman Gushchin, the
omission of this file from the list is a bug, and
is about to be fixed by a kernel patch from Roman.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
We are about to add description of a different kind
of delegation (nsdelegate) with its own subheading.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Existing cgroups under threaded root *must*, by definition,
be either domain or part of threaded subtrees, so this is not
a constraint on the creation of threaded subtrees.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
The placement of a thread in the run queue for its new
priority depends on the direction of movement in priority.
(This appears to contradict POSIX, except in the case of
pthread_setschedprio().)
As reported by Andrea, and followed up by me:
> 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
> ).
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).
Reported-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Logically, this section should follow the section that
describes cgroup.subtree_control.
No content changes in this patch.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Michael Kerrisk