[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1349806792.24256.34.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:19:52 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.6.1-rt1
On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 15:46 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Dear RT Folks,
>
> I'm pleased to announce the 3.6.1-rt1 release.
>
> This is a pretty straight forward move from the 3.4-rt series which
> includes a few significant updates which need to be backported to the
> 3.x-rt stable series:
My scripts detected these patches to be pulled into stable. It detects
any patch that has a Cc: to stable-rt@...r.kernel.org that does not
already exist in stable. It also adds the '000x-' prefix to keep the
order.
0000-scsi-qla2xxx-fix-bug-sleeping-function-called-from-invalid-context.patch
0001-upstream-net-rt-remove-preemption-disabling-in-netif_rx.patch
0002-random-make-it-work-on-rt.patch
0003-softirq-init-softirq-local-lock-after-per-cpu-section-is-set-up.patch
0004-mm-slab-fix-potential-deadlock.patch
0005-mm-page-alloc-use-local-lock-on-target-cpu.patch
0006-rt-rw-lockdep-annotations.patch
0007-stomp-machine-deal-clever-with-stopper-lock.patch
>
> * Make interrupt randomness work again on RT. Based on the 3.x.y
> stable updates in that area. Should be applicable to all 3.x-rt
> series with almost no modifications.
Looks to be: random-make-it-work-on-rt.patch
>
> * RT softirq initialization sequence fix (Steven Rostedt)
As I remembered that I forgot to Cc stable-rt, I manually added it to my
patch before running the script.
>
> * Fix for a potential deadlock in mm/slab.c. This had been reported
> as lockdep splats several times and stupidly ignored as a false
> positive, but in fact it's a real (though almost impossible to
> trigger) deadlock lurking.
Looks to be: mm-slab-fix-potential-deadlock.patch
>
> * Use the proper local_lock primitives in mm/page_alloc.c. That's
> not a real bug, but this fixes an inconsistency which helps
> debugability and therefore is worthwhile to be backported.
Looks to be: mm-page-alloc-use-local-lock-on-target-cpu.patch
>
> * RT-rwlock/rwsem annotations:
Looks to be: rt-rw-lockdep-annotations.patch
>
> RT does not allow multiple readers on rwlocks and rwsems. The
> lockdep annotations did not yet consider that fact. One might
> think that this is a complete RT specific issue, but it's
> not. The FIFO fair rwsem/lock modifications in mainline made
> reader/writer primitives prone to very subtle deadlock problems
> which cannot be detected by the current lockdep annotations in
> mainline. The reason is that if a writer interleaves with two
> readers it will block the second reader from proceeding in order
> not to allow writer starvation. The restricted RWlocks semantics
> of RT allow an easy detection of that problem. We already
> triggered a real deadlock in RT (see:
> peterz-srcu-crypto-chain.patch) which could result in a hard to
> trigger, but mainline relevant deadlock. Wait for more
> interesting problems in that area.
>
> * The output of might_sleep debugging is silent about the possible
> causes vs. the preempt count. Contrary to interrupt disabling
> there is zero information about what disabled preemption
> last. Again, not strictly a bugfix, but debuggability is key.
Is this: sched-better-debug-output-for-might-sleep.patch ? It's not
marked to Cc stable-rt.
>
> * Fix a potentially deadly sto(m)p_machine deadlock. A CPU which
> calls that code from its inactive state (don't ask me for the
> ghastly deatils why this is necessary) can run into a contended
> state of the stomp machine mutex which would cause a rather
> awkward issue of idle scheduling itself away to idle as the only
> possible task on that upcoming cpu. Not pretty ....
Looks to be: stomp-machine-deal-clever-with-stopper-lock.patch
If I'm wrong with the above, let me know. Thanks,
-- 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