[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <550AFC6A.4050901@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:42:18 -0600
From: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
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>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"
On 03/19/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100
> Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>> (aw crap, let's go shopping)... so why is the one in timer.c ok?
>
> It's not. Sebastian, you said there were no other cases of rt_mutexes
> being taken in hard irq context. Looks like timer.c has one.
>
> So perhaps the real fix is to get that special case of ownership in
> hard interrupt context?
>
> -- Steve
>
Steve, I'm still working on the fix we discussed using dummy irq_task.
I should be able to submit some time next week, if still interested.
Either that, or I think we should remove the function
spin_do_trylock_in_interrupt() to prevent any possibility of running
into similar problems in the future.
Thanks,
Mak.
--
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