On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:41:29PM +0100, luca abeni wrote: > > Some day we should fix this :-)
> I am trying to have a better look at the code, and I think that > implementing bandwidth inheritance (BWI) could be easy (implementing > M-BWI, that can be analyzed on multi-processor systems, is more complex > because it requires busy waiting or similar). Ah indeed, I remember now. To which I said that if busy-waiting is 'correct' so then must not busy-waiting be, for that consumes less cputime and would allow more actual work to be done. Of course, I might have missed some subtle detail, but intuition suggests the above. > > Nope, but fixing this is likely to be non-trivial. > Ok... So, if this is acceptable for this patchset I'll try to keep the > current PI behaviour, Yeah that's fine. That's decidedly outside the scope of these patches. > and I'll try to have a look at a better PI > protocol after the runtime reclaiming stuff is done (that is, I make it > acceptable for mainline, or we decide that a different approach is > needed). That would be very nice indeed!
