[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130911143557.14c1fe6a@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:35:57 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mario Kleiner <mario.kleiner@...bingen.mpg.de>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context on
3.10.10-rt7
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:29:07 +0200
Mario Kleiner <mario.kleiner@...bingen.mpg.de> wrote:
> That said, maybe preempt_disable is no longer the optimal choice there
> and there's some better way to achieve good protection against
> interruptions of that bit of code? My knowledge here is a bit rusty, and
> the intel kms drivers and rt stuff has changed quite a bit.
If you set your code to a higher priority than other tasks (and
interrupts) than it wont be preempted there. Unless of course it blocks
on a lock, but even then, priority inheritance will take place and it
still should be rather quick. (unless the holder of the lock is doing
that strange polling).
-- 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