On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:59:10 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@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 -- 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/
