On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:20:31PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 14/06/16 14:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:09:34AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > I've got only nitpicks for the changelog. Otherwise the patch looks good > > > to me (and yes, without it bw inheritance would be a problem). > > > > So for bw inheritance I'm still not sure how to dead with the faxt that > > the top_pi_waiter, while blocked, can still be running, spin waiting. > > > > You mean for M-BWI (multiprocessor), right? If that's the case, we were > actually discussing this thing with Pisa/Trento folks yesterday. I'm not > sure yet as well, but plan seems to be to get first things right with > current DI code (Luca was saying that there is a BUG somewhere); then > move to implement BWI; and then tackle the M- case (and see what we can > do to work around the theoretical need for spin waiting). We actually > got some ideas a while back, but I need to go there and refresh my mind. > > If the plan sounds reasonable to you, it seems that we can start this > discussion as soon as Luca has his DI fixes ready. What you think?
No objections.