Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:37:57 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Mario Kleiner <mario.kleiner.de@gmail.com>,
        Mario Kleiner <mario.kleiner@tuebingen.mpg.de>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ville =?UTF-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context
 on 3.10.10-rt7
Message-ID: <20131011083757.7d3db58c@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20131011101800.GE6983@linutronix.de>
References: <5230895B.5070400@hurleysoftware.com>
	<20130911113845.6d56a556@gandalf.local.home>
	<5230C52E.3050801@hurleysoftware.com>
	<5238B288.3000704@hurleysoftware.com>
	<CAKMK7uG9s8W6yebkmuJe0XHGsoru4_9FzGqfmKWtMFyCAfQZqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<523CC728.4040302@tuebingen.mpg.de>
	<20130923083841.GT4531@intel.com>
	<5242674A.8020100@tuebingen.mpg.de>
	<20130925101301.6cbe5d0f@gandalf.local.home>
	<52445DEF.1060007@gmail.com>
	<20131011101800.GE6983@linutronix.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 817
Lines: 23

On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:18:00 +0200
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:

> * Mario Kleiner | 2013-09-26 18:16:47 [+0200]:
> 
> >Good! I will do that. Thanks for clarifying the irq and constraints
> >on raw locks in the other thread.
> 
> Are there any suggestions for "now"?  preempt_disable_nort() like Luis
> suggesed?
> 

The preempt_disable_nort() is rather pointless, because the
preempt_disable() was added specifically for -rt. When PREEMPT_RT is
not enabled, preemption is disabled there already by the previous calls
to spin_lock().

-- 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/