Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Darren Hart <dvhltc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, I think we're fine with respect to the pi_state ownership! In
fact I finally managed to catch the lock steal in the requeue loop
in my tracing, and everything worked fine. Going to go rerun a
bunch more tests and see if I hit any other issues, if I do, I
suspect they are unrelated to this.
Thanks for the help in thinking this through.
i've got these queued up:
00235fe: futex: Update woken requeued futex_q lock_ptr
1bbf208: rtmutex: Avoid deadlock in rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock()
should i drop them?
My apologies for the churn on these Ingo. My comments above only apply
to this RFC thread, the other patches are needed. You should include
the following patches:
tip/core/urgent
===============
rtmutex: Avoid deadlock in rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock()
1bbf20835c4e088667a090ce6523a0f70b62dc76
[PATCH] futex: Update futex_q lock_ptr on requeue proxy lock (resend)
from Aug 7, 2009
The one you committed is older, I resent it on Aug 7 with an
improved patch description, commentary, and DEBUG_PI_LIST
ifdefs. Please drop 00235fe25eba6d3a13f3349b2e3a2d94b699a414
and pull in the new one.
[PATCH V2] futex: Fix handling of bad requeue syscall pairing
from Aug 7, 2009
tip/rt/something
================
[PATCH 2/2][RT] Avoid deadlock in rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock()
from Aug 5, 2009
This one uses the new atomic_spinlock calls for the RT tree. I
suspect you may instead choose to make that one line change
yourself.
Thanks,
--
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
--
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
