Re: [PATCH RT 00/39] Linux 3.14.34-rt32-rc1

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:59:10 +0100
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/