On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 18:14 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Mike Galbraith | 2013-12-25 18:37:37 [+0100]: > > >On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 23:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 04:07:34AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > >Having sufficiently recovered from turkey overdose to be able to slither > >upstairs (bump bump bump) to check on the box, commenting.. > > > ># timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch > ># rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch > > > >..those two out does seem to have stabilized the thing. > > timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch is on its way out. > > rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch confues me. > Didn't you report once that your box deadlocks without this patch? Now > your 64way box on the other hand does not work with it? If 'do not raise' is applied, 'use a trylock' won't save you. If 'do not raise' is not applied, _and_ you wisely do not try to turn on very expensive nohz_full, things work fine without 'use a trylock'. -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
