[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5506E446.1060007@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:10:14 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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 03/16/2015 03:02 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.
This is the only place and I introduced it only for that reason.
>
> -- 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