[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140422094657.5b6ca1e2@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:46:57 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Stanislav Meduna <stano@...una.org>,
"linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: spinlock trylock failure on UP, i.MX28 3.12.15-rt25
[ added Peter ]
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:54:39 +0200
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> this is, erm, harmless. We grab the timer lock via trylock in hardirq
> context. If the lock is already taken then we fail to get it we go for
> plan B. According to lockdep a trylock should not fail on UP. This is
> true in general except for this timer case. I was thinking abour
> disabling this lockdep checkā¦
trylock not failing on UP, can that be an issue? I mean, if a hardirq
does a trylock to see if it can grab a lock that is not protected by
disabling irqs, and will go to plan B if it fails, on UP, it will
always get it. But the issue is still there. That would mean that a
hardirq could have preempted a critical section and doing a trylock
here would succeed when it really should have failed.
-- 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