[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52F4EBFA.3040401@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:21:46 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] rt: Make cpu_chill() use hrtimer instead of msleep()
On 02/07/2014 03:13 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:08:34 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> could you please tell me which two locks are invovled here?
>
> I should have also stated that it was only one lock that was involved.
> But the lock owner was doing a msleep() that requires a wakeup by
> ksoftirqd to continue. If ksoftirqd happens to be blocked on a lock
> held by the msleep() caller, then you have your deadlock.
That makes sense.
> It's best not to have any softirqs going to sleep requiring another
> softirq to wake it up. Note, if we ever require a timer softirq to do a
> cpu_chill() it will most definitely hit this deadlock.
Yes. And that sleep in softirq is also not really nice but this isn't
new. Thanks for the patch & explanation.
>
> -- Steve
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