lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:27:30 +0100
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 06:23 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > I plan on taking a poke at getting "don't raise timer unconditionally"
> > working again when I get myself unburied, and see if I can come up with
> > a somewhat less icky way to work around take rtmutex in irq naughtiness.
>
> Hm.. like maybe only do a fasttrylock with the wait lock already held
> via trylock, and don't bother turning it loose until we're done, to keep
> the sane people away. That might work.. but may not be considered less
> icky by people equipped with that mysterious "taste" thingy ;-)

You would still need to add some ownership so that all will fail the
fast path.

You mean create a spin_trylock_in_hirq() which would just lock
the waitlock and not even do the fast path with the rt_mutex.

if (!raw_spin_trylock(waitlock))
goto failed_lock;

if (!try_to_take_rt_mutex()) {
raw_spin_unlock(waitlock);
goto failed_lock;
}

return success;


With the waitlock held, no slow path will get to the pi code. Then you
have a spin_unlock_in_hirq() that would go right into the slow path
assuming the waitlock is already held.

Sounds reasonable to me.

-- Steve





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-26 15:01    [W:0.111 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site