Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.6.13-rc6-rt9 | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:17:36 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 18:46 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > you are not the culprit :) > > Woo-hoo!!! Exonerated!!! This time, anyway... ;-)
My pleasure :)
> > It can not be run from hardirq context, as it takes a lot of locks > > (especially our favorites: tasklist_lock and sighand->siglock). :( > > > > Maybe another playground for rcu, but it might also be solved by some > > other mechanism for accounting and delayed execution in the PREEMPT_RT > > case. > > Certainly check_thread_timers() and check_process_timers() are playing > with a number of task_struct fields, so it is not immediately clear > to me how to safely replace tasklist_lock with RCU, at least not with > a simple and small patch. > > What did you have in mind for delayed execution?
Do only the time check in hard irq context and defer the lock protected operations to a softirq context. Have to look deeper at the details though.
tglx
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |