To: john.blackwood@ccur.com
Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@novell.com>,
       general@lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] [PATCH] [WORKAROUND] CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT and ib_umad_close() issue
References: <46EEB715.7060509@ccur.com>
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:40:08 -0700
In-Reply-To: <46EEB715.7060509@ccur.com> (John Blackwood's message of "Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:19:17 -0400")
Message-ID: <adair69nf7r.fsf@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.20 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1048
Lines: 30

Thanks for the explanation...

 > But basically, with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT enabled, the lock points, such as
 > aqcuiring a spinlock, potentially become places where the current task
 > may be context switched out / preempted.
 > 
 > Therefore, when a call is made to lock a spinlock for example, the
 > caller should not currently have irqs disabled, or preemption disabled,
 > since a context switch may occur.

this doesn't seem relevant here...

 > void fastcall rt_downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *rwsem)
 > {
 >         BUG();
 > }

this seems to be the problem... the -rt patch turns downgrade_write()
into a BUG().

I need to look at the locking in user_mad.c again, but I think it may
be possible to replace both places that do downgrade_write() with
up_write() followed by down_read().

 - R.
-
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/