On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2013-12-15 16:15:11 [+0100]: > > >* Steven Rostedt | 2013-12-06 10:25:32 [-0500]: > > > >> > >>Let me analyze the original code first. I'll poke peterz and tglx too > >>to make sure this modification is OK. > > > >I took 1/3. I postpone the remaining two until I hear something from > >you. > > Any news? > Carsten Emde added the two patches 0001-write_lock-migrate_disable-pushdown-to-rt_write_lock.patch 0002-read_lock-migrate_disable-pushdown-to-rt_read_lock.patch to the -rt9 test on one of his ARM boards (i.MX6 Sabre automation board) in the OSADL QA-Farm (rack #9/slot #8) <snip Carsten Emde> No complaints so far after adding your patches. If you would like to follow up: - Profile: https://www.osadl.org/?id=1822 - Patches: https://www.osadl.org/?id=1822#patches - Latency plot: https://www.osadl.org/?id=1823 - Munin: https://www.osadl.org/munin/osadl.org/rack9slot8.osadl.org/index.html <snip> so it atleast seems to be passing basic testing. I have an AMD Phenom X4 and Intel i3 running -rt9 with those two patches applied running stable now for 2 days under alternating load/idle conditions as well. Unfortunately no further feedback up to now. Given that its a low-level locking issue I guess that more testing is of little help and code-reviews would be essential. Notably if any cases could exist where the order of preempt_disable/lock critical-section unlock/preempt_enable actually does natter. thx! hofrat -- 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
