On 03/16/2015 03:02 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:59:10 +0100 > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> * Steven Rostedt | 2015-03-12 15:13:07 [-0400]: >> >>> Please scream at me if I messed something up. Please test the patches too. >> >> So Paul remided us about the dead lock thingy that has been reported. >> Users reported that it does not occur with v3.18-RT and they think it is >> due to 'Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"' in >> Revert-timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch. >> >> I reverted it because I couldn't get highres to get to work at all on >> v3.18 due to different synchronisation / expectaion of the timer >> framework. Since the trylock might record a different lock owner it is >> possible that this causes the deadlock (it thinks). Therefore it has no >> stable tag nor any reference to the deadlock problem. > > I guess the question is, is there any other place that does a trylock > in hard irq context? If so, the revert isn't going to fix it. This is the only place and I introduced it only for that reason. > > -- Steve 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
