[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YKZYMKg8PPkwzJXm@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:38:08 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
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 20/05/21 10:33, Quentin Perret wrote:
> 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
>
Yeah, this was my thinking as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists