[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610241408480.30444@frodo.shire>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:19:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...glemail.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...glemail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rtmutex's wait_lock in 2.6.18-rt7
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 11:55 +0200, Esben Nielsen wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I see that in 2.6.18-rt7 the rtmutex's wait_lock is sudden interrupt
>> disabling. I don't see the need as no (hard) interrupt-handlers should be
>> touching any mutex.
>
> It does not touch mutexes, but the dynamic priority adjustment of the
> hrtimer softirq needs it.
>
> The correct solution will be moving the timer callback into the process
> context, as it will be woken up anyway, but that's more complex to do
> than it looks in the first place.
>
I have send out patches doing the correct priority adjustment without
touching the wait_lock. Why not use that?
I found it in the archives:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0610.0/0049.html
(or more specific in
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0610.0/0051.html, look for
changes to sched.c)
It is very bad to do PI traversal in interrupt context. In the general
case, where there are user-space locks, that operation unbounded. I
know that in your case you can only traverse kernel locks, but I think it
is bad to open for such posibilities if it can be avoided.
Esben
> tglx
>
>
-
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