lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel BUG at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997!
From
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> That smells like something we should be able to do without a lock.
>
> If we use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() on those two fields (->active_timers and
> ->next_timer) we should be able to do this without the spinlock.

Yeah, when atomics were suggested earlier, I was wondering if we could
just use READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE.

> Races here aren't really a problem I think, if you manage to install a
> timer at the current jiffy and have already missed the tick you're in
> the same boat. You get to wait for the next tick.

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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-07 20:41    [W:0.077 / U:2.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site