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 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?
Looks like it was (see Peter's reply). > 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? Makes sense to me. Maybe we should just still keep in mind eventual integration, so that we don't take decisions we would regret.
