From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751259AbaHJDN2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Aug 2014 23:13:28 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]:36824 "EHLO mail-we0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751038AbaHJDN1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Aug 2014 23:13:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1407640403.5124.33.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: deferred set priority (dprio) From: Mike Galbraith To: Andi Kleen Cc: Sergey Oboguev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, khalid.aziz@oracle.com Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 05:13:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20140809180455.GA4120@two.firstfloor.org> References: <8738dm9t4z.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <1406532289.5133.223.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1407059776.5156.108.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1407303693.5090.171.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1407402199.5141.283.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1407589454.5156.308.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20140809180455.GA4120@two.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2014-08-09 at 20:04 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > NAK. There it is, my imaginary NAK to imaginary realtime priorities :) > > Ok, but do you have any alternative proposal yourself how to solve the > lockholder preemption problem? I assume you agree it's a real problem. > > Just being negative is not very constructive. I both acknowledged the problem problem, and made alternative suggestions. -Mike