forked from Minki/linux
sched: Allow users with sufficient RLIMIT_NICE to change from SCHED_IDLE policy
The current scheduler implementation returns -EPERM when trying to change from SCHED_IDLE to SCHED_OTHER or SCHED_BATCH. Since SCHED_IDLE is considered to be a nice 20 on steroids, changing to another policy should be allowed provided the RLIMIT_NICE is accounted for. This patch allows the following test-case to pass with RLIMIT_NICE=40, but still fail with RLIMIT_NICE=10 when the calling process is run from a typical shell (nice 0, or 20 in rlimit terms). int main() { int ret; struct sched_param sp; sp.sched_priority = 0; /* switch to SCHED_IDLE */ ret = sched_setscheduler(0, SCHED_IDLE, &sp); printf("setscheduler IDLE: %d\n", ret); if (ret) return ret; /* switch back to SCHED_OTHER */ ret = sched_setscheduler(0, SCHED_OTHER, &sp); printf("setscheduler OTHER: %d\n", ret); return ret; } $ ulimit -e 40 $ ./test setscheduler IDLE: 0 setscheduler OTHER: 0 $ ulimit -e 10 $ ulimit -e 10 $ ./test setscheduler IDLE: 0 setscheduler OTHER: -1 Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> LKML-Reference: <4D657BEE.4040608@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
parent
a2f5c9ab79
commit
c02aa73b1d
@ -4981,12 +4981,15 @@ recheck:
|
||||
param->sched_priority > rlim_rtprio)
|
||||
return -EPERM;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Like positive nice levels, dont allow tasks to
|
||||
* move out of SCHED_IDLE either:
|
||||
* Treat SCHED_IDLE as nice 20. Only allow a switch to
|
||||
* SCHED_NORMAL if the RLIMIT_NICE would normally permit it.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (p->policy == SCHED_IDLE && policy != SCHED_IDLE)
|
||||
return -EPERM;
|
||||
if (p->policy == SCHED_IDLE && policy != SCHED_IDLE) {
|
||||
if (!can_nice(p, TASK_NICE(p)))
|
||||
return -EPERM;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* can't change other user's priorities */
|
||||
if (!check_same_owner(p))
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user