Re: [PATCH 08/11] sched_ext: Delegate proxy donor admission to BPF schedulers
John Stultz <[email protected]> Mon, 20 Jul 2026 22:15:41 -0700
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.sched-ext,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CANDhNCpk-9ABJDpcLWe87tmHKw4fYWsODH_OGM__5hNUnD=fiA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 9:54 PM Andrea Righi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 05:37:29PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > Though, looking at your patch stack, I'd rather not make my patches > > under review a dependency for your patches. Peter has not yet put his > > laser-eyes upon my series so there's no telling how much rework they > > may need (and it does have some subtle parts that I'm sure he'll have > > feedback on). So just to allow your current series to be able to move > > foward, would it make sense if I added your "sched: Distinguish proxy > > activations from wakeups" patch to the end of my series? It looks > > like there's not much interlock on the rest of your changes (though > > I've not carefully reviewed the diff from your scx-proxy-exec branch > > as they are on different bases), so maybe that would just work and the > > rest of your series could move forward? > > Sounds like a good plan! It'd be helpful if you could include > "sched: Distinguish proxy activations from wakeups" at the end of your > sleeping-owner series. Will do! I've got a few more things to cleanup and get through testing, but I'm hoping to get v31 out to the list soon. > I'll move the combined version to scx-proxy-exec-sleeping-owner for testing and > rebase the scx-proxy-exec series without the sleeping-owner changes, so that it > can move forward independently for now. Sounds good! Thanks so much again for all your work here! Its really appreciated! -john