Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote: >>>> Is this a bug in mainline? The !PREEMPT_RT case should be as close to >>>> mainline as possible, with no actual changes in object code. If this is >>>> not the case, then we need to fix that. >>> No, this issue is in -rt only. >>> >> Hi Hiroshi, >> >> Thanks again for reporting this. I took a deeper look into this today and >> came to the conclusion that we need to get rid of both >> slab_irq_disable_nort and slab_irq_disable_rt, and simply use >> slab_irq_disable ;-) >> >> This is what you patch indirectly does. I'll write up another patch to fix >> this. >> > > Actually, I'm going to take your patch. > > Seems that the reason Ingo did the two separate, is that the functions > called also call the slab_irq_save, which will retake the locks in > PREEMPT_RT. If we don't release the lock, then we can deadlock. > OK, actually, I had a interest in your rework :-) thanks, Hiroshi Shimamoto -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
