Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753582AbbDGT52 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 15:57:28 -0400 Received: from g9t5008.houston.hp.com ([15.240.92.66]:50149 "EHLO g9t5008.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752959AbbDGT51 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 15:57:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1428436643.2556.66.camel@j-VirtualBox> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel BUG at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997! From: Jason Low To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke , Steven Rostedt , LKML , Ingo Molnar , linux-rt-users , jason.low2@hp.com Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:57:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1424395866-81589-1-git-send-email-tmac@hp.com> <1428369962-74723-1-git-send-email-tmac@hp.com> <1428369962-74723-2-git-send-email-tmac@hp.com> <1428407236.3152.81.camel@gmail.com> <20150407120403.GN21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1243 Lines: 32 On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 21:17 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Jason Low wrote: > > The lock shouldn't be used in get_next_timer_interrupt() either right? > > > > unsigned long get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long now) > > { > > ... > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL > > /* > > * On PREEMPT_RT we cannot sleep here. If the trylock does not > > * succeed then we return the worst-case 'expires in 1 tick' > > * value. We use the rt functions here directly to avoid a > > * migrate_disable() call. > > */ > > if (!spin_do_trylock(&base->lock)) > > return now + 1; > > #else > > And how do you protect the walk of the timer wheel against a > concurrent insertion/removal? So I just wanted to mention that the issue also applies to get_next_timer_interrupt(), in addition to run_local_timers(), but if we really want to remove the lock there, can we always return "now + 1" for PREEMPT_RT_FULL? -- 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/