* Alexander Fyodorov | 2013-08-13 01:13:56 [+0400]: >Hi Sebastian, Hi Alexander, >Is there a need to write a test? It is nice to have so it can be checked if this bug is fixed "some place else". Now that I looked at it for a while, would this fix your trouble? diff --git a/kernel/rtmutex.c b/kernel/rtmutex.c --- a/kernel/rtmutex.c +++ b/kernel/rtmutex.c @@ -724,6 +724,7 @@ static void noinline __sched rt_spin_lock_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock) struct task_struct *lock_owner, *self = current; struct rt_mutex_waiter waiter, *top_waiter; int ret; + int new_state; rt_mutex_init_waiter(&waiter, true); @@ -744,8 +745,11 @@ static void noinline __sched rt_spin_lock_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock) * try_to_wake_up(). */ pi_lock(&self->pi_lock); + new_state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE; + if (task_is_traced(self)) + new_state |= __TASK_TRACED; self->saved_state = self->state; - __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); + __set_current_state(new_state); pi_unlock(&self->pi_lock); ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, &waiter, self, 0); This should avoid that the trace state is lost while waiting on that mutex and the checks for "is traced" may remain the same. Sebastian -- 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
