| Date | Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:02:05 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RT 00/39] Linux 3.14.34-rt32-rc1 |
| |
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:59:10 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt | 2015-03-12 15:13:07 [-0400]: > > >Please scream at me if I messed something up. Please test the patches too. > > So Paul remided us about the dead lock thingy that has been reported. > Users reported that it does not occur with v3.18-RT and they think it is > due to 'Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"' in > Revert-timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch. > > I reverted it because I couldn't get highres to get to work at all on > v3.18 due to different synchronisation / expectaion of the timer > framework. Since the trylock might record a different lock owner it is > possible that this causes the deadlock (it thinks). Therefore it has no > stable tag nor any reference to the deadlock problem.
I guess the question is, is there any other place that does a trylock in hard irq context? If so, the revert isn't going to fix it.
-- Steve
> > With this patch applied FULL_NOHZ should not properly work (again) due > to timer softirq wake ups (but this is a different problem). > > Sebastian
|