From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, claudio@evidence.eu.com,
tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it, alessio.balsini@gmail.com,
bristot@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
patrick.bellasi@arm.com, henrik@austad.us,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:23:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181010112300.GQ5728@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181010131629.6623ddb4@luca64>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:16:29PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:57:10 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:34:17PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
> > > So, I would propose to make the proxy() function of patch more
> > > generic, and not strictly bound to mutexes. Maybe a task structure
> > > can contain a list of tasks for which the task can act as a proxy,
> > > and we can have a function like "I want to act as a proxy for task
> > > T" to be invoked when a task blocks?
> >
> > Certainly possible, but that's something I'd prefer to look at after
> > it all 'works'.
>
> Of course :)
> I was mentioning this idea because maybe it can have some impact on the
> design.
>
> BTW, here is another "interesting" issue I had in the past with changes
> like this one: how do we check if the patchset works as expected?
>
> "No crashes" is surely a requirement, but I think we also need some
> kind of testcase that fails if the inheritance mechanism is not working
> properly, and is successful if the inheritance works.
>
> Maybe we can develop some testcase based on rt-app (if noone has such a
> testcase already)
Indeed; IIRC there is a test suite that mostly covers the FIFO-PI stuff,
that should obviously still pass. Steve, do you know where that lives?
For the extended DL stuff, we'd need new tests.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-10 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-09 9:24 [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution Juri Lelli
2018-10-09 9:24 ` [RFD/RFC PATCH 1/8] locking/mutex: Convert mutex::wait_lock to raw_spinlock_t Juri Lelli
2018-10-09 9:24 ` [RFD/RFC PATCH 2/8] locking/mutex: Removes wakeups from under mutex::wait_lock Juri Lelli
2018-10-09 9:24 ` [RFD/RFC PATCH 3/8] locking/mutex: Rework task_struct::blocked_on Juri Lelli
2018-10-10 10:43 ` luca abeni
2018-10-10 11:06 ` Juri Lelli
2018-10-09 9:24 ` [RFD/RFC PATCH 4/8] sched: Split scheduler execution context Juri Lelli
2019-05-06 11:06 ` Claudio Scordino
2018-10-09 9:24 ` [RFD/RFC PATCH 5/8] sched: Add proxy execution Juri Lelli
2018-10-10 11:10 ` luca abeni
2018-10-11 12:34 ` Juri Lelli
2018-10-11 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-11 13:42 ` Juri Lelli
2018-10-12 7:22 ` luca abeni
2018-10-12 8:30 ` Juri Lelli
2018-10-09 9:24 ` [RFD/RFC PATCH 6/8] locking/mutex: make mutex::wait_lock irq safe Juri Lelli
2018-10-09 9:24 ` [RFD/RFC PATCH 7/8] sched: Ensure blocked_on is always guarded by blocked_lock Juri Lelli
2018-10-09 9:24 ` [RFD/RFC PATCH 8/8] sched: Fixup task CPUs for potential proxies Juri Lelli
2018-10-09 9:44 ` [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-09 9:58 ` Juri Lelli
2018-10-09 10:51 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-10-09 11:56 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2018-10-09 12:35 ` Juri Lelli
2018-10-10 10:34 ` luca abeni
2018-10-10 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-10 11:16 ` luca abeni
2018-10-10 11:23 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-10-10 12:27 ` Juri Lelli
2018-10-10 11:56 ` Henrik Austad
2018-10-10 12:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-10 13:48 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2018-10-10 12:36 ` Juri Lelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181010112300.GQ5728@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=alessio.balsini@gmail.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=henrik@austad.us \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).