Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757725Ab3JKOiU (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:38:20 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.225]:14749 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751751Ab3JKOiT (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:38:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:38:14 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Mario Kleiner , Mario Kleiner , Peter Hurley , Clark Williams , Daniel Vetter , LKML , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , Dave Airlie , Thomas Gleixner , "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" , intel-gfx , linux-rt-users , Ville =?UTF-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context on 3.10.10-rt7 Message-ID: <20131011103814.385a16a0@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <5257FD6E.6070809@linutronix.de> References: <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> <20130925101301.6cbe5d0f@gandalf.local.home> <52445DEF.1060007@gmail.com> <20131011101800.GE6983@linutronix.de> <20131011083757.7d3db58c@gandalf.local.home> <5257FD6E.6070809@linutronix.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: 107.14.168.130:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1217 Lines: 34 On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:30:22 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 10/11/2013 02:37 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:18:00 +0200 > > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 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(). > > Either way. Then I remove the preempt_enable/disable call. Any > objections? > I have no issues with it, but it may cause issues with timings for the device. But I see Mario is looking into that :-) -- 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/