Re: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"

[Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke]

On 03/19/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100
> Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/