On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 12:44 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Mike Galbraith | 2013-09-15 06:45:40 [+0200]: > > Hi, > > >On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 23:46 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > >> Could you check that? > > > >I think you're right. > > > >> Or alternatively: Is my proposed sem_lock() function -rt friendly? > > > >Some way of making spin_unlock_wait() _go away_ along with the livelock > >would be better, but patches look good to me. I'll apply both and stare > >at the sum, and ask boxen what they think.. they're better at spotting > >locking troubles ;-) > > Do you post a new series of those three patches with the live lock > Manfred mentioned fixed or should I look at this serie? Manfred's race fix also kills loop, and thereby the -rt livelock, so the only question is does -rt want to use his completion wakeup scheme, and does it want to do something about spin_unlock_wait() unconditionally grabbing/releasing every lock in the array. -Mike -- 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
