Re: [PATCH RT 00/39] Linux 3.14.34-rt32-rc1
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Date: 2015-03-16 14:10:25
Also in:
lkml
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Date: 2015-03-16 14:10:25
Also in:
lkml
On 03/16/2015 03:02 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:59:10 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
* Steven Rostedt | 2015-03-12 15:13:07 [-0400]:quoted
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