From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Austin Schuh <austin@peloton-tech.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Filesystem lockup with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:07:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1403892474.5830.41.camel@marge.simpson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140627135415.7246e87e@gandalf.local.home>
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 13:54 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:34:53 +0200
> Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:01 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > This seems like a lot of hacks.
> >
> > It is exactly that, lacking proper pooper-scooper, show rt kernel how to
> > not step in it.
> >
> > > I'm wondering if it would work if we
> > > just have the rt_spin_lock_slowlock not call schedule(), but call
> > > __schedule() directly. I mean it would keep with the mainline paradigm
> > > as spinlocks don't sleep there, and one going to sleep in the -rt
> > > kernel is similar to it being preempted by a very long NMI.
> >
> > Problem being that we do sleep there, do need wakeup. I have a hack
> > that turns them back into spinning locks, but it.. works too :)
>
> Why do we need the wakeup? the owner of the lock should wake it up
> shouldn't it?
True, but that can take ages.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-27 18:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-14 2:29 Filesystem lockup with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT Austin Schuh
2014-05-21 6:23 ` Austin Schuh
2014-05-21 7:33 ` Richard Weinberger
2014-06-26 19:50 ` Austin Schuh
2014-06-26 22:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-27 0:07 ` Austin Schuh
2014-06-27 3:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-27 12:57 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-27 14:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-27 17:34 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-27 17:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-27 18:07 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2014-06-27 18:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-27 19:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-28 1:18 ` Austin Schuh
2014-06-28 3:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-28 6:20 ` Austin Schuh
2014-06-28 7:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-27 14:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-28 4:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-07-01 0:12 ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-01 0:53 ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-05 20:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-06 4:55 ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-01 3:01 ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-01 19:32 ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-03 23:08 ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-04 4:42 ` Mike Galbraith
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-05-21 19:30 John Blackwood
2014-05-21 21:59 ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-05 20:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1403892474.5830.41.camel@marge.simpson.net \
--to=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=austin@peloton-tech.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=richard.weinberger@gmail.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox