[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140124195014.GB29981@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:50:14 +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 | 2014-01-18 04:25:14 [+0100]:
>> ># 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?
>
>If 'do not raise' is applied, 'use a trylock' won't save you. If 'do
is this just an observation or you do know why it won't save me?
Currently I think to go back to the version where the waiter_lock was
taken with irqs off. However I would prefer to trigger this myself so I
would know what is going on instead blindly apply patches.
>-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