Phil Nelson wrote:
> On Thursday 26 July 2018 23:23:13 Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> > static void
> > foo_intr(...)
> > {
> > ...
> > mutex_enter(>sc_work_lock);
> > if (!sc->sc_work_scheduled) {
> > workqueue_enqueue(sc->sc_wq, >sc_work, NULL);
> >
On Thursday 26 July 2018 23:23:13 Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> static void
> foo_intr(...)
> {
> ...
> mutex_enter(>sc_work_lock);
> if (!sc->sc_work_scheduled) {
> workqueue_enqueue(sc->sc_wq, >sc_work, NULL);
> sc->sc_work_scheduled = true;
>
On Friday 27 July 2018 11:39:16 Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> This is an indication that you are trying to acquire an adaptive lock
> while holding a spin-lock. Adaptive mutex (using IPL_NONE) blocks and,
> by design, you cannot block while holding a spin-mutex (> IPL_NONE).
> If you will
Phil Nelson wrote:
> I'm getting a mutex error here in that the lock is held.
> Backtrace:
> System panicked: LOCKDEBUG: Mutex error: mutex_vector_enter,528: spin
> lock held Backtrace from time of crash is available.
> crash> bt
> _KERNEL_OPT_NARCNET() at 0
> _KERNEL_OPT_ACPI_SCANPCI() at
On Thursday 26 July 2018 23:23:13 Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> Is this a conceptual problem, or do you have a symptom that you're
> actually hitting with specific code? If the latter, can you describe
> the symptom and quote the code?
Yes, this a real problem I'm having.
This is my real "f()":
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 22:57:57 -0700
> From: Phil Nelson
>
> I'm trying to work with workqueues and am having a locking problem
Is this a conceptual problem, or do you have a symptom that you're
actually hitting with specific code? If the latter, can you describe
the sympt
Hello all,
I'm trying to work with workqueues and am having a locking problem
Lets say I have a function f() as follows:
int f() {
mutex_enter(_mutex);
.. code .
mutex_exit(_mutex);
}
and now lets say that I start another function running via
Hi,
I'd like to tackle LFS issues. I've been running it as my root
filesystem to get some real world testing, and it often wedges, and this
with heavy use of KERNEL_LOCK (it's not marked MPSAFE).
I'm still getting to know it, and not there yet.
I don't feel comfortable with how it has its own
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org wrote:
Hello
Another caveat with DADHI porting: that require something like
Linux Workqueues feature:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/htmldocs/device-drivers/ch01s06.html
(It only uses schedule_work, cancel_work_sync
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:47:39AM +0100, haad wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org wrote:
Hello
Another caveat with DADHI porting: that require something like
Linux Workqueues feature:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/htmldocs/device-drivers/ch01s06
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:24:33AM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
Hello
Another caveat with DADHI porting: that require something like
Linux Workqueues feature:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/htmldocs/device-drivers/ch01s06.html
(It only uses schedule_work, cancel_work_sync and flush_work
11 matches
Mail list logo
