On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:34:53 +0200
Mike Galbraith [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:01 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

This seems like a lot of hacks.

It is exactly that, lacking proper pooper-scooper, show rt kernel how to
not step in it.

quoted

I'm wondering if it would work if we
just have the rt_spin_lock_slowlock not call schedule(), but call
__schedule() directly. I mean it would keep with the mainline paradigm
as spinlocks don't sleep there, and one going to sleep in the -rt
kernel is similar to it being preempted by a very long NMI.

Problem being that we do sleep there, do need wakeup.  I have a hack
that turns them back into spinning locks, but it.. works too :)

Why do we need the wakeup? the owner of the lock should wake it up
shouldn't it?


-- Steve