From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: Process Hang in __read_seqcount_begin Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:33:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <1350925299.8609.978.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1351053164.6537.95.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1351270087.30380.9.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1351285552.30380.20.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org To: Peter LaDow Return-path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:53520 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752632Ab2JaAdI (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:33:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Peter LaDow wrote: > Anyway, based on earlier discussion, is there any reason not to use a > lock (presuming any solution properly takes into account possible > recursion)? I understand that the mainline is protected, but perhaps > in the RT version we can use seqlock (and prevent a recursive lock)? Have you tried 3.6.3-rt9?