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

[Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke]

On 03/22/2015 10:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> Why can't we just Let swapper be the owner when in irq with no dummy?
>>

Thanks Mike for the suggestion.  That may also work. Unfortunately
somehow I'm still having a hung problem, which may be related to the
priority of the interrupt handler task.

>> I have "don't raise timer unconditionally" re-applied, the check for a
>> running callback bits of my nohz_full fixlet, and the below on top of
>> that, and all _seems_ well.
> 
> But not so well on 64 core box.  That has nothing to do with hacklet
> though, re-applying timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch
> without thta hangs the 64 core box during boot with no help from me
> other than to patchlet to let nohz work at all, seems there's another
> issue lurking there.  Hohum.  Without 'don't raise..", big box is fine.
> 

If you get your patch to work, I could try my test that was able to
reproduce the problem consistently.

Thanks,
Mak.

> 	-Mike
> 
--
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/