Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755880Ab3IYOSI (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:18:08 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.225]:39501 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755641Ab3IYOSG convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:18:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:18:03 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Ville =?UTF-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= Cc: Mario Kleiner , Daniel Vetter , Peter Hurley , linux-rt-users , Clark Williams , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , LKML , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , Dave Airlie , Thomas Gleixner , intel-gfx , "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context on 3.10.10-rt7 Message-ID: <20130925101803.2848fc3c@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20130925074936.GI4531@intel.com> 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> <20130923083841.GT4531@intel.com> <5242674A.8020100@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20130925074936.GI4531@intel.com> 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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.142:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1201 Lines: 30 On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:49:36 +0300 Ville Syrjälä wrote: > The preempt_disable/enable is not needed. The spinlock serves the same > purpose already. As stated, that was only for the -rt patch, as spin_lock_irqsave does not disable preemption nor does it even disable interrupts. But I agree, the added preempt_disable() should be sent to us to keep in the -rt patch itself. We really appreciate that you are thinking about us :-) But something like this will just confuse the mainline folks. Having a "preempt_disable_rt()" would make a lot more sense (which exists in the -rt patch). > > As far as ktime_get(), I've used it from spinlocked/irq disabled sections > and so far haven't seen it do bad things. But would be nice to get some > official statement to that effect. It's just a read seqlock. It may do a few loops to get the correct time, but it's fine to have in a preempt/irq disabled section. -- 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/