From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:44:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20181009094441.GI5663@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20181009092434.26221-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luca.abeni@santannapisa.it, claudio@evidence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it, alessio.balsini@gmail.com, bristot@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com, andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@arm.com, henrik@austad.us, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org To: Juri Lelli Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181009092434.26221-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote: > The main concerns I have with the current approach is that, being based > on mutex.c, it's both > > - not linked with futexes > - not involving "legacy" priority inheritance (rt_mutex.c) > > I believe one of the main reasons Peter started this on mutexes is to > have better coverage of potential problems (which I can assure everybody > it had). I'm not yet sure what should we do moving forward, and this is > exactly what I'd be pleased to hear your opinions on. Well that, and mutex was 'simple', I didn't have to go rip out all the legacy PI crud. If this all ends up working well, the solution is 'simple' and we can simply copy mutex to rt_mutex or something along those lines if we want to keep the distinction between them. Alternatively we simply delete rt_mutex. Thanks for reviving this.. it's been an 'interesting' year and a half since I wrote all this and I've really not had time to work on it.