* Mike Galbraith | 2015-03-25 03:33:53 [+0100]:
>Nah, I was referring to get_next_timer_interrupt() because I saw that
>rt_spin_unlock_after_trylock_in_irq(&base->lock) sitting there.
Hmm. Good question. But it was Ingo who introduced the lock, so it might
have special Ingo magic included.
>
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:27:30 +0100
Mike Galbraith 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 wa
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 on
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 06:23 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:17 -0600, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:
> >
> > On 03/22/2015 10:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >> Why can't we just Let swapper be the owner when in irq with no dummy?
> > >>
> >
> > Thanks Mike for the sug
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:17 -0600, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:
>
> On 03/22/2015 10:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> Why can't we just Let swapper be the owner when in irq with no dummy?
> >>
>
> Thanks Mike for the suggestion. That may also work. Unfortunately
> somehow I'm still having
On 03/22/2015 10:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> Why can't we just Let swapper be the owner when in irq with no dummy?
>>
Thanks Mike for the suggestion. That may also work. Unfortunately
somehow I'm still having a hung problem, which may be related to the
priority of the interrupt handler task
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 19:15 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith | 2015-03-21 19:02:23 [+0100]:
>
> >> Steve, I'm still working on the fix we discussed using dummy irq_task.
> >> I should be able to submit some time next week, if still interested.
> >>
> >> Either that, or I
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 19:10 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt | 2015-03-19 12:26:11 [-0400]:
>
> >On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100
> >Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> >
> >> (aw crap, let's go shopping)... so why is the one in timer.c ok?
> >
> >It's not. Sebastian, you said
* Mike Galbraith | 2015-03-21 19:02:23 [+0100]:
>> Steve, I'm still working on the fix we discussed using dummy irq_task.
>> I should be able to submit some time next week, if still interested.
>>
>> Either that, or I think we should remove the function
>> spin_do_trylock_in_interrupt() to preven
* Steven Rostedt | 2015-03-19 12:26:11 [-0400]:
>On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100
>Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>
>> (aw crap, let's go shopping)... so why is the one in timer.c ok?
>
>It's not. Sebastian, you said there were no other cases of rt_mutexes
>being taken in hard irq context. Looks like
On Sat, 2015-03-21 at 19:02 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 10:42 -0600, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:
> > On 03/19/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100
> > > Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> (aw crap, let's go shopping)..
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 10:42 -0600, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:
> On 03/19/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100
> > Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> >
> >> (aw crap, let's go shopping)... so why is the one in timer.c ok?
> >
> > It's not. Sebastian, you sa
On 03/19/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>
>> (aw crap, let's go shopping)... so why is the one in timer.c ok?
>
> It's not. Sebastian, you said there were no other cases of rt_mutexes
> being taken in hard irq context. Looks
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> (aw crap, let's go shopping)... so why is the one in timer.c ok?
It's not. Sebastian, you said there were no other cases of rt_mutexes
being taken in hard irq context. Looks like timer.c has one.
So perhaps the real fix is to get that
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 16:35 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:35:43 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > 3.10.70-rt75-rc2 stable review patch.
> > If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > --
> >
>
> Here's the missing change log for this reve
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:35:43 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 3.10.70-rt75-rc2 stable review patch.
> If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> --
>
Here's the missing change log for this revert. I'll go back and add it
in:
An issue arisen that if a rt_mutex (spin_lo
3.10.70-rt75-rc2 stable review patch.
If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
This reverts commit f406cca1f3ecb370bc2915d176557b1cbafb8d4c
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt
Conflicts:
kernel/timer.c
---
include/linux/hrtimer.
3.12.38-rt53-rc2 stable review patch.
If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
This reverts commit e8886d18e87ca7a578cd85467418a0de693588ca
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt
Conflicts:
kernel/timer.c
---
include/linux/hrtimer.
3.14.34-rt32-rc2 stable review patch.
If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
This reverts commit 891f510568343d93c5aa2f477b6bebe009b48f05.
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt
Conflicts:
kernel/timer.c
---
include/linux/hrtimer
19 matches
Mail list logo
