[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:57:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it, alessio.balsini@...il.com,
bristot@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com,
andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
patrick.bellasi@....com, henrik@...tad.us,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution
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'. The mutex blocking thing doesn't require external
interfaces etc..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists