[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1342499278.24525.13.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:27:58 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>,
"Chris L. Mason" <clmason@...ionio.com>,
"linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: 3.4.4-rt13: btrfs + xfstests 006 = BOOM.. and a bonus rt_mutex
deadlock report for absolutely free!
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 06:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > There's that too. But the issue I was talking about is with all trylock
> > loops. As holding an rt-mutex now disables migration, if a high priority
> > process preempts a task that holds the lock, and then the high prio task
> > starts spinning waiting for that lock to release, the lower priority
> > process will never get to run to release it. The cpu_chill() doesn't
> > help.
>
> Hrm. I better go make a testcase, this one definitely wants pounding
> through thick skull.
Actually, I was mistaken. I forgot that we defined 'cpu_chill()' as
msleep(1) on RT, which would keep a deadlock from happening.
It doesn't explain the performance enhancement you get :-/
-- Steve
--
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