Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:35:58 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        peterz@infradead.org, 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,
        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
Subject: Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution
Message-ID: <20181009123558.GF9130@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20181009092434.26221-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <20181009105112.bhqlrabdt5ae5qmm@linutronix.de>
 <9837aa4b-1bd4-bc6a-84f7-0b8704995d44@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9837aa4b-1bd4-bc6a-84f7-0b8704995d44@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 09/10/18 13:56, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 10/9/18 12:51 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 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.
> > wasn't the idea that once it works to get rid of rt_mutex?

Looks like it was (see Peter's reply).

> As far as I know, it is. But there are some additional complexity
> involving a -rt version of this patch, for instance:
> 
> What should the protocol do if the thread migrating is with migration
> disabled?
> 
> The side effects of, for instance, ignoring the migrate_disable() would
> add noise for the initial implementation... too much complexity at once.
> 
> IMHO, once it works in the non-rt, it will be easier to do the changes
> needed to integrate it with -rt.
> 
> Thoughts?

Makes sense to me. Maybe we should just still keep in mind eventual
integration, so that we don't take decisions we would regret.