Roland Dreier wrote:
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...
Hi Roland,
right. just some background info.
> 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.
that sounds like it would be a good solution for both preempt rt and
non-preempt rt kernels.
thanks again for looking at this for us.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
