On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 13:54 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:34:53 +0200 > Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:01 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > This seems like a lot of hacks. > > > > It is exactly that, lacking proper pooper-scooper, show rt kernel how to > > not step in it. > > > > > I'm wondering if it would work if we > > > just have the rt_spin_lock_slowlock not call schedule(), but call > > > __schedule() directly. I mean it would keep with the mainline paradigm > > > as spinlocks don't sleep there, and one going to sleep in the -rt > > > kernel is similar to it being preempted by a very long NMI. > > > > Problem being that we do sleep there, do need wakeup. I have a hack > > that turns them back into spinning locks, but it.. works too :) > > Why do we need the wakeup? the owner of the lock should wake it up > shouldn't it? True, but that can take ages. -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
