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

[Juri Lelli]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.