Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Mainlining PREEMPT_RT

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 12:19:41 AM Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:40:10AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:42:30 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > 
> > > Now that it was announced in Dublin last week that mainlining
> > > PREEMPT_RT has funding, I would like to propose a tech topic to discuss
> > > what is needed to be done in the near future.
> > > 
> > > Thomas Gleixner and his minions will be doing the brunt of the work,
> > > but there's issues that need to be addressed with the rest of the
> > > kernel. The various topics would include:
> > > 
> > >  CPU hotplug
> > >  preempt_disable and local_irq_disable annotations
> > >  new timer_wheel implementation
> > >  simple waitqueues
> > >  trylock boosting
> > > 
> > > Several of the Real Time developers will be present at kernel summit. I
> > > think this would be a great opportunity to have them be able to sit
> > > down together and discuss the remaining issues.
> > 
> > Well, that's not limited to the RT developers even.
> > 
> > Good topic.
> 
> How much of this is the above topics Vs lack of good semantics in general, or
> code which needs love / good design? I ask as we have a few 'semantic'
> discussions, and I have a feeling there might be overlap.

At this time it is not particularly clear to me how much overlap there's going
to be, if any.

And if there is overlap, we should be able to notice that and avoid
discussing the same thing twice, perhaps?

Thanks,
Rafael