On June 9, 2020 7:37:31 PM GMT+03:00, Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>On June 9, 2020 7:34:46 PM GMT+03:00, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
><bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On 2020-06-09 11:17:53 [-0500], Tom Zanussi wrote:
>>> Hi Sebastian,
>>Hi Tom,
>>
>>> I did find a problem with the patch when configured as !SMP since in
>>> that case the RUN flag is never set (will send a patch for that
>>> shortly), but that wouldn't be the case here.
>>
>>How?
>>
>>| #if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL)
>>| static inline int tasklet_trylock(struct tasklet_struct *t)
>>| {
>>| return !test_and_set_bit(TASKLET_STATE_RUN, &(t)->state);
>>| }
>>
>>I can't tell from the backtrace if he runs with RT or without but I
>>assumed RT. But yes, for !SMP && !RT it would explain it.
>PREEMT_FULL is enabled.
>I'm working on getting symbols for this trace, this is a crash kernel
>so everything is stripped naked.
>Thanks, Ramon
Correction. normal kernel is running with RT enabled, crash kernel without.
>>
>>> It would help to be able to reproduce it, but I haven't been able to
>>> yet.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>Sebastian
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
