Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755839Ab3IYOHf (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:07:35 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.225]:26284 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755447Ab3IYOHd (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:07:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:07:30 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Mario Kleiner Cc: Daniel Vetter , Peter Hurley , "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" , linux-rt-users , Thomas Gleixner , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Clark Williams , Dave Airlie , LKML , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , intel-gfx Subject: Re: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context on 3.10.10-rt7 Message-ID: <20130925100730.0b63628e@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <523CC728.4040302@tuebingen.mpg.de> References: <20130911102809.GA31663@uudg.org> <20130911092623.42efd930@gandalf.local.home> <5230895B.5070400@hurleysoftware.com> <20130911113845.6d56a556@gandalf.local.home> <5230C52E.3050801@hurleysoftware.com> <5238B288.3000704@hurleysoftware.com> <523CC728.4040302@tuebingen.mpg.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.118:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1121 Lines: 29 Sorry for the late reply, I was at Linux Plumbers, and had a bunch of stuff to catch up on when I returned. On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 00:07:36 +0200 Mario Kleiner wrote: > Steven, would it then be acceptable to convert that "faster" lock into a > raw_spinlock_t or is this unacceptable? If so, the preempt_disable() > could stay, right? If a spinlock is tight (not held for more than 2us on todays processors), and has little contention, than I would be fine with converting it to raw. And if that's the only lock held you could do the preempt_disable() call. In fact, if you want, you can leave the preempt_disable() out of mainline, and send a patch to us that uses "preempt_disable_rt()" and add a comment to it. In the -rt patch, preempt_disable_rt() is a nop when PREEMPT_RT is not set, and is preempt_disable() when it is. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/