On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 18:26 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 12:02 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 04:02 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > Great, thanks! I got stuck in bug land on Friday. You mentioned > > > > performance problems earlier on Saturday, did this improve performance? > > > > > > Yeah, the read_trylock() seems to improve throughput. That's not > > > heavily tested, but it certainly looks like it does. No idea why. > > > > Ouch, you just turned the rt_read_lock() into a spin lock. If a higher > > priority process preempted a lower priority process that holds the same > > lock, it will deadlock. > > Hm, how, it's doing cpu_chill()?
'course PI is toast, so *poof*. Since just enabling the lockdep bits seems to fix it up, maybe that's the patchlet to submit (less is more). -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
