lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"
From
Date
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 19:10 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt | 2015-03-19 12:26:11 [-0400]:
>
> >On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:17:09 +0100
> >Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> (aw crap, let's go shopping)... so why is the one in timer.c ok?
> >
> >It's not. Sebastian, you said there were no other cases of rt_mutexes
> >being taken in hard irq context. Looks like timer.c has one.
>
> If you refer to switch_timer_base() then this one is not taken in
> hard-irq context. The callchain is:
>
> lock_timer_base() (with spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, *flags) which
> makes it a sleeping lock or lockdep would scream)
> -> switch_timer_base()
> -> spin_trylock() (not in hardirq conteyt)

Nah, I was referring to get_next_timer_interrupt() because I saw that
rt_spin_unlock_after_trylock_in_irq(&base->lock) sitting there.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-25 03:41    [W:0.091 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site