[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140117171441.GG5785@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:14:41 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Eliminate softirq processing from rcutree
* Mike Galbraith | 2013-12-25 18:37:37 [+0100]:
>On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 23:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 04:07:34AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>Having sufficiently recovered from turkey overdose to be able to slither
>upstairs (bump bump bump) to check on the box, commenting..
>
># timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch
># rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch
>
>..those two out does seem to have stabilized the thing.
timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch is on its way out.
rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch confues me.
Didn't you report once that your box deadlocks without this patch? Now
your 64way box on the other hand does not work with it?
>Merry Christmasss,
>
>-Mike
Sebastian
--
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