On 10/10/18 2:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> I believe there were some papers circulated last year that looked at
>> something similar to this when you had overlapping or completely disjoint
>> CPUsets I think it would be nice to drag into the discussion. Has this been
>> considered? (if so,
On 10/10/18 2:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> I believe there were some papers circulated last year that looked at
>> something similar to this when you had overlapping or completely disjoint
>> CPUsets I think it would be nice to drag into the discussion. Has this been
>> considered? (if so,
On 10/10/18 13:56, Henrik Austad wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi, nice series, I have a lot of details to grok, but I like the idea of PE
>
> > Proxy Execution (also goes under several other names) isn't a new
> > concept, it has been
On 10/10/18 13:56, Henrik Austad wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi, nice series, I have a lot of details to grok, but I like the idea of PE
>
> > Proxy Execution (also goes under several other names) isn't a new
> > concept, it has been
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 wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:34:17PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
> > > > So, I would propose to make the proxy() function
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 wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:34:17PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
> > > > So, I would propose to make the proxy() function
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:56:39PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi, nice series, I have a lot of details to grok, but I like the idea of PE
>
> > Proxy Execution (also goes under several other names) isn't a new
> >
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:56:39PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi, nice series, I have a lot of details to grok, but I like the idea of PE
>
> > Proxy Execution (also goes under several other names) isn't a new
> >
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi, nice series, I have a lot of details to grok, but I like the idea of PE
> Proxy Execution (also goes under several other names) isn't a new
> concept, it has been mentioned already in the past to this community
> (both in
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi, nice series, I have a lot of details to grok, but I like the idea of PE
> Proxy Execution (also goes under several other names) isn't a new
> concept, it has been mentioned already in the past to this community
> (both in
Hi all,
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:24:26 +0200
Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Proxy Execution (also goes under several other names) isn't a new
> concept, it has been mentioned already in the past to this community
> (both in email discussions and at conferences [1, 2]), but no actual
>
Hi all,
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:24:26 +0200
Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Proxy Execution (also goes under several other names) isn't a new
> concept, it has been mentioned already in the past to this community
> (both in email discussions and at conferences [1, 2]), but no actual
>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:16:29PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:57:10 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra 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
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:16:29PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:57:10 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra 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
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:57:10 +0200
Peter Zijlstra 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
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:57:10 +0200
Peter Zijlstra 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 2018-10-09 11:24:26 [+0200], Juri Lelli 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
On 2018-10-09 11:24:26 [+0200], Juri Lelli 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
On 09/10/18 11:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli 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
On 09/10/18 11:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli 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
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli 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
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Juri Lelli 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
Hi all,
Proxy Execution (also goes under several other names) isn't a new
concept, it has been mentioned already in the past to this community
(both in email discussions and at conferences [1, 2]), but no actual
implementation that applies to a fairly recent kernel exists as of today
(of which
Hi all,
Proxy Execution (also goes under several other names) isn't a new
concept, it has been mentioned already in the past to this community
(both in email discussions and at conferences [1, 2]), but no actual
implementation that applies to a fairly recent kernel exists as of today
(of which
30 matches
Mail list logo
