Message-ID: <1391230457.5348.92.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 4/8] rtmutex: use a trylock for waiter lock in trylock
From: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Carsten Emde <C.Emde@osadl.org>,
        John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 05:54:17 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1391228495.5348.82.camel@marge.simpson.net>
References: <20140116015824.201732155@goodmis.org>
	 <20140116020324.637491369@goodmis.org>
	 <1389841737.5418.14.camel@marge.simpson.net>
	 <20140116232228.0f3cfb89@gandalf.local.home>
	 <1389935832.5449.23.camel@marge.simpson.net>
	 <20140131220737.GF21238@linutronix.de>
	 <1391228495.5348.82.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 05:21 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: 
> On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 23:07 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: 
> > * Mike Galbraith | 2014-01-17 06:17:12 [+0100]:
> > 
> > >On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 23:22 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: 
> > >> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:08:57 +0100
> > >> Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 20:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >> > 
> > >> > 
> > >> > > 3.2.53-rt76-rc1 stable review patch.
> > >> > > If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > >> > 
> > >> > Not sure this is needed without the tglx don't unconditionally raise
> > >> > timer softirq patch, and with that patch applied in the form it exists
> > >> > in 3.12-rt9, as well as this one, you'll still eventually deadlock.
> > >> 
> > >> Hmm, I'll have to take a look. This sounds to be missing from all the
> > >> stable -rt kernels. I'll be pulling in the latest updates from 3.12-rt
> > >> soon.
> > >
> > >Below are the two deadlocks I encountered with 3.12-rt9, which has both
> > >$subject and timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch applied.
> > 
> > This patch was introduced because we had a deadlock in
> > run_local_timers() which took a sleeping lock in hardirq context. This
> > seem not to be the case in v3.2 therefore I would suggest not to take
> > this patch here because it does not fix anything.
> > 
> > Mike, do you see these deadlocks with 3.12.*-rt11 as well?
> 
> No.  I beat 64 core box hard configured both nohz_idle and nohz_full,
> the only thing that fell out was the nohz_full irqs enabled warning.

Oh, and the softirq pending warnings appearing under heavy load.  I
hadn't gotten to chasing those, but I see they should be history.

I'll wedge the pending -rt11 fixes in, and let 64 core stress a bit
while you're kneading -rt12 dough.

-Mike

--
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/