[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YKY7FvFeRlXVjcaA@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 10:33:58 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into
SCHED_DEADLINE
On Thursday 20 May 2021 at 11:16:41 (+0100), Will Deacon wrote:
> Ok, thanks for the insight. In which case, I'll go with what we discussed:
> require admission control to be disabled for sched_setattr() but allow
> execve() to a 32-bit task from a 64-bit deadline task with a warning (this
> is probably similar to CPU hotplug?).
Still not sure that we can let execve go through ... It will break AC
all the same, so it should probably fail as well if AC is on IMO
Powered by blists - more mailing lists