[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140422141650.7f43d5ba@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:16:50 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
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
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:48:02 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> I need to take a deeper look into the actual code. But as trylocks on
> UP are nops (always succeed), and if it expects to be able to do
> something in a critical section that is protected by spinlocks (again
> nops on UP), this would be broken for UP.
Reading the code, I see it's broken. We should add something like this:
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
---
diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
index cc34e42..a03164a 100644
--- a/kernel/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/timer.c
@@ -1447,6 +1447,12 @@ static void run_timer_softirq(struct softirq_action *h)
__run_timers(base);
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+#define timer_should_raise_softirq(lock) !spin_do_trylock(lock)
+#else
+#define timer_should_raise_softirq(lock) 1
+#endif
+
/*
* Called by the local, per-CPU timer interrupt on SMP.
*/
@@ -1467,7 +1473,7 @@ void run_local_timers(void)
return;
}
- if (!spin_do_trylock(&base->lock)) {
+ if (timer_should_raise_softirq(&base->lock)) {
raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
return;
}
--
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