Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752426AbbBXARZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:17:25 -0500 Received: from g9t1613g.houston.hp.com ([15.240.0.71]:48611 "EHLO g9t1613g.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752028AbbBXARY (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:17:24 -0500 Message-ID: <54EBC2DB.3050904@hp.com> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:16:27 -0700 From: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt , Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.14.25-rt22 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel BUG at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997! References: <1424395866-81589-1-git-send-email-tmac@hp.com> <1424395866-81589-2-git-send-email-tmac@hp.com> <20150223133719.2b7c604e@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20150223133719.2b7c604e@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1889 Lines: 53 On 02/23/2015 11:37 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > OK, I believe I understand the issue. Perhaps it would be much better > to create a fake task per CPU that we use when grabbing locks in > interrupt mode. And make these have a priority of 0 (highest), since > they can not be preempted, they do have such a priority. > > Then in the fast trylock and unlock code, we can add: > > struct task_struct *curr = current; > > if (unlikely(in_irq())) > curr = this_cpu_read(irq_task); > > This way the priority inheritance will stop when it hits this task (no > need to boost a task of highest priority), and we can leave that code > alone. > Thanks again for the comments and suggestion. Yes, creating a per cpu fake task was one of the alternative considered. I believe one of the reasons I did not purse is the amount of extra storage it requires (sizeof(struct task_struct) * number of cpus. Though the changes may not be as intrusive as the one I sent, some are still required, mainly with current (one in particular came to mind is in wakeup_next-watier()). If I'm not mistaken, another reason could also be due to the rate of the timer interrupt, in the case that the mutex is highly contested IH could stall the non-real-time requester for a long time, even to the point of the cpu is perceived as hung. Anyway, I'll retry the fake task approach a try and report back if there is any issue. Thanks, Mak. > -- Steve > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- 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/