* Mike Galbraith | 2015-03-21 19:02:23 [+0100]: >> Steve, I'm still working on the fix we discussed using dummy irq_task. >> I should be able to submit some time next week, if still interested. >> >> Either that, or I think we should remove the function >> spin_do_trylock_in_interrupt() to prevent any possibility of running >> into similar problems in the future. > >Why can't we just Let swapper be the owner when in irq with no dummy?
so you abuse the owner to be swapper and mask it out everywhere. It does not look like a final solution. I'm more inclined to take you other patch. In the end I hope we get a timer re-work and do not need any hackary around it… >I have "don't raise timer unconditionally" re-applied, the check for a >running callback bits of my nohz_full fixlet, and the below on top of >that, and all _seems_ well. Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
