[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:27:42 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>, 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 10/10/18 13:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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@...radead.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.
This one, right?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/rt-tests/rt-tests.git/tree/src/pi_tests/pi_stress.c?h=stable/v1.0
It looks like it supports DEADLINE as well.. although I'll have to check
again what it does for the DEADLINE case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists