Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-01

* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:

> because end_buffer_async_read/write use bit_spin_(un)lock and I do not 
> know how those interact with -RT.

bit_spin_lock is preemptible too - but it's not a too nice construct.  
What seems to have happened in your trace is that local_irq_disable() 
was used too in combination with bit-spinlocks, and a spinlock was taken 
from within it. The best fix would be to get rid of bit-spinlocks ...

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-05
    • From: Gene Heskett <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-01
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-01
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-01
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-01
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] 2.6.13-rc4-git3: snd_intel8x0: handle irq_request failure on resume
• Next by Date: Re: iptables redirect is broken on bridged setup
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-01
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-05
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]