lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: timers: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:27:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > And if I make the scheduling-clock interrupt send extra wakeups to the RCU
> > grace-period kthread when needed, things work even with CPU hotplug going.
> >
> > The "when needed" means any time that the RCU grace-period kthread has
> > been sleeping three times as long as the timeout interval. If the first
> > wakeup does nothing, it does another wakeup once per second.
> >
> > So it looks like this change makes an existing problem much worse, as
> > opposed to introducing a new problem.
>
> I have a vague idea about a possible race window. Have you been
> observing this on PPC or x86?
>
> The reason I'm asking is that PPC (obviously) allows for more races :-)

;-)

I have been seeing this on x86.

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-31 01:41    [W:0.071 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site