Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RT] bad BUG_ON in rtmutex.c | From | Daniel Walker <> | Date | Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:14:36 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 11:06 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:32 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually, where that BUG_ON was is the exiting of the chain walk. So it > > > does stop. It's the higher priority task that needs to be continuing > > > the chain walk for that problem to occur. So really, it already does > > > what you suggest :) > > > > I bet you could test for that condition in some other spots too . Like > > when it adds to the pi_waiters , you could test if the priorities are > > out of sync .. > > You mean the other places in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain? It already > checks once an iteration, anything more is just over kill.
Yeah, sounds good .
> Actually, I always thought that running PREEMPT_DESKTOP with soft and hard > IRQS as threads was priority ceiling. It's just that all locks have the > priority of MAX_RT_PRIO (no preemption allowed). OK, this doesn't apply > to mutexes, but it does apply for spin_locks. :)
Interesting way to look at it .
Reminds me of the RT read/write locks, only one read or one writer at a time, so it's really just a mutex ..
Daniel
- 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/
| |