[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 21:17:36 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.12.6-rt9
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 04:15:29 +0100
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de> wrote:
> > So you also have the timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch?
>
People have been complaining that the latest 3.12-rt does not boot on
intel i7 boxes. And by reverting this patch, it boots fine.
I happen to have a i7 box to test on, and sure enough, the latest
3.12-rt locks up on boot and reverting the
timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch, it boots fine.
Looking into it, I made this small update, and the box boots. Seems
checking "active_timers" is not enough to skip raising softirqs. I
haven't looked at why yet, but I would like others to test this patch
too.
I'll leave why this lets i7 boxes boot as an exercise for Thomas ;-)
-- Steve
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
index 46467be..8212c10 100644
--- a/kernel/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/timer.c
@@ -1464,13 +1464,11 @@ void run_local_timers(void)
raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
return;
}
- if (!base->active_timers)
- goto out;
/* Check whether the next pending timer has expired */
if (time_before_eq(base->next_timer, jiffies))
raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
-out:
+
rt_spin_unlock_after_trylock_in_irq(&base->lock);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists