[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150316100205.261c039e@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:02:05 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 00/39] Linux 3.14.34-rt32-rc1
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:59:10 +0100
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt | 2015-03-12 15:13:07 [-0400]:
>
> >Please scream at me if I messed something up. Please test the patches too.
>
> So Paul remided us about the dead lock thingy that has been reported.
> Users reported that it does not occur with v3.18-RT and they think it is
> due to 'Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"' in
> Revert-timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch.
>
> I reverted it because I couldn't get highres to get to work at all on
> v3.18 due to different synchronisation / expectaion of the timer
> framework. Since the trylock might record a different lock owner it is
> possible that this causes the deadlock (it thinks). Therefore it has no
> stable tag nor any reference to the deadlock problem.
I guess the question is, is there any other place that does a trylock
in hard irq context? If so, the revert isn't going to fix it.
-- Steve
>
> With this patch applied FULL_NOHZ should not properly work (again) due
> to timer softirq wake ups (but this is a different problem).
>
> 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