From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juri Lelli Subject: Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:27:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20181010122742.GM9130@localhost.localdomain> References: <20181009092434.26221-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com> <20181010123417.26c682ef@luca64> <20181010105710.GP5728@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20181010131629.6623ddb4@luca64> <20181010112300.GQ5728@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: luca abeni , mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 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: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181010112300.GQ5728@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org 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 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.