Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution

[Daniel Bristot de Oliveira]

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?

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?

-- Daniel