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

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> 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?

Sounds good.

 Luis