From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [Ilw] Re: Kernel panic in 3.10.10-rt7 (iwlwifi) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 09:33:11 +0200 Message-ID: <525263B7.5090609@linutronix.de> References: <2CD18B42-2489-4DF7-98D6-4D002329DC63@m3y3r.de> <20131004101216.GA17043@linutronix.de> <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB301DBC098@HASMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Meyer , "linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org" , "Berg, Johannes" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , Intel Linux Wireless , "tglx@linutronix.de" To: "Grumbach, Emmanuel" Return-path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:33397 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751413Ab3JGHdN (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 03:33:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB301DBC098@HASMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/06/2013 08:00 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote: > > We have a patch internally that goes into that direction, but one thing though. Sounds great. > If you still have a spinlock in the primary handler, wouldn't that sleep in a non-sleepable context? Forgive my -rt ignorance, but I understood that in -rt, all the spinlock go to sleep which basically mean that we can't take any spinlock in the primary irq handler so I am a bit confused here. After my change there is no primary handler anymore, just the threaded where you can take the (sleeping) spinlock. Everything what you wrote is correct: - you can't take a spinlock in the primary handler - all spinlocks may sleep Sebastian