From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932214AbVHYQQM (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:16:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932264AbVHYQQL (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:16:11 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.56]:42904 "EHLO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932214AbVHYQQL (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:16:11 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] RT-patch update to remove the global pi_lock From: Steven Rostedt To: Ingo Molnar Cc: LKML , Thomas Gleixner In-Reply-To: <20050825063539.GB27291@elte.hu> References: <1124739657.5809.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1124739895.5809.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1124749192.17515.16.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> <1124756775.5350.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1124758291.9158.17.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> <1124760725.5350.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1124768282.5350.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1124908080.5604.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1124917003.5711.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1124932391.5527.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050825063539.GB27291@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Kihon Technologies Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:15:54 -0400 Message-Id: <1124986554.5148.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 08:35 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > Well, after turning off hrtimers, I keep getting one bug. A possible > > soft lockup with the ext3 code. But this didn't seem to be caused by > > the changes I made. So just to be sure, I ran my test on the vanilla > > 2.6.13-rc6-rt11 and it gave the same bug too. So, it looks like my > > changes are now at par with what is out there with the rt11 release. > > They both give the same bug! ;-) > > does the system truly lock up, or is this some transitional condition? > In any case, i agree that this should be debugged independently of the > pi_lock patch. Hmm, I forgot that you took out the bit_spin_lock fixes. I think this may be caused by them. I haven't look further into it yet. Oh, and I'm sending you this on your latest patch with my pi_lock patch applied. (no debugging turned on either and this is an SMP machine). -- Steve