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

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

* Steven Rostedt | 2015-03-19 12:26:11 [-0400]:

>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.

If you refer to switch_timer_base() then this one is not taken in
hard-irq context. The callchain is:

lock_timer_base() (with spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, *flags) which
                   makes it a sleeping lock or lockdep would scream)
  -> switch_timer_base()
     -> spin_trylock() (not in hardirq conteyt)

>So perhaps the real fix is to get that special case of ownership in
>hard interrupt context?

I'm really not sure we want to keep doing this.

>
>-- Steve

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/