[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150226090610.7eb0ac61@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:06:10 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>,
Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.14.25-rt22 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel
BUG at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997!
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:56:30 +0100
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> I am not sure if we want keep doing that. The only reason why we grab
> the lock in the first place was to check if there is a timer pending
> and we run on the isolated CPU. It should not matter for the other CPUs,
> right?
> So instead going further that road, what about storing base->next_timer
> someplace so it can be obtained via atomic_read() for the isolated CPUs?
>
If we can pull that off and remove all rtmutex trylocks from hardirq
context, I would much rather do that.
This hocus pocus coding is just going to lead us down the path of the
black arts. I already have a black cat, so I'm good to go.
-- 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