On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 13:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, here it finally is. There's still things I don't like about it. > > But it seems to work, and that's the important part. > > > > I had to reluctantly add two items to the task_struct. I was hoping > > to avoid that. But because of race conditions it seemed to be the only > > way. > > well it's not a big problem, and we avoided having to add flags to the > rt_lock structure, which is the important issue. > > your patch looks good, i've added it to my tree and have uploaded the > -26-00 patch. It boots fine on my testbox, except for some new messages: > > knodemgrd_0/902: BUG in __down_complete at kernel/rt.c:1568 > [<c0103956>] dump_stack+0x23/0x25 (20) > [<c0130dcd>] down_trylock+0x1fb/0x200 (48) > [<c0364ee2>] nodemgr_host_thread+0xd0/0x17b (48) > [<c0100d4d>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xb (136249364) > --------------------------- > | preempt count: 00000001 ] > | 1-level deep critical section nesting: > ---------------------------------------- > .. [<c0133a75>] .... print_traces+0x1b/0x52 > .....[<c0103956>] .. ( <= dump_stack+0x23/0x25) > > this goes away if i revert your patch. It seems the reason is that > trylock hasnt been updated to use the pending-owner logic?
Hmm, The pending owner logic in __down_trylock uses the grab_lock function. It doesn't need the capture_lock since it never sleeps. I'm downloading your 42-00-experimental now and installing it to see if I can get the same message. Did you try the patch against 41-11? Maybe the patch didn't go in so smoothly. Anyway, I'll take a look at it now and let you know what I find. Thanks, -- Steve - 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/
