Subject: sched: Fixup scheduler syscall LTP fails

Wu reported:

> ltp.sched_setparam02.1.TFAIL
> ltp.sched_setparam02.2.TFAIL
> ltp.sched_setparam02.3.TFAIL
> ltp.sched_setparam03.1.TFAIL

There were 2 things wrong; firstly __setscheduler() failed on
sched_setparam()'s policy = -1, fix that by reading from p->policy in
that case.

Secondly, getparam() (and getattr()) would still report !0
sched_priority for !FIFO/RR tasks after having been such. So
unconditionally set p->rt_priority.

Fixes: d50dde5a10f3 ("sched: Add new scheduler syscalls to support an extended 
scheduling parameters ABI")
Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c | 14 +++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 0326c06953eb..50e99f2cf98b 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3183,15 +3183,23 @@ static void __setscheduler(struct rq *rq, struct 
task_struct *p,
 {
        int policy = attr->sched_policy;
 
+       if (policy == -1) /* setparam */
+               policy = p->policy;
+
        p->policy = policy;
 
        if (dl_policy(policy))
                __setparam_dl(p, attr);
-       else if (rt_policy(policy))
-               p->rt_priority = attr->sched_priority;
-       else
+       else if (fair_policy(policy))
                p->static_prio = NICE_TO_PRIO(attr->sched_nice);
 
+       /*
+        * __sched_setscheduler() ensures attr->sched_priority == 0 when
+        * !rt_policy. Always setting this ensures that things like
+        * getparam()/getattr() don't report silly values for !rt tasks.
+        */
+       p->rt_priority = attr->sched_priority;
+
        p->normal_prio = normal_prio(p);
        p->prio = rt_mutex_getprio(p);
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to