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:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:27:42 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>, 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
Subject: Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution
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
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181010112300.GQ5728@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <peterz@infradead.org> 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.