From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RT] bad BUG_ON in rtmutex.c
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:14:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1145376876.5447.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0604181058430.12720@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 11:06 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:32 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Actually, where that BUG_ON was is the exiting of the chain walk. So it
> > > does stop. It's the higher priority task that needs to be continuing
> > > the chain walk for that problem to occur. So really, it already does
> > > what you suggest :)
> >
> > I bet you could test for that condition in some other spots too . Like
> > when it adds to the pi_waiters , you could test if the priorities are
> > out of sync ..
>
> You mean the other places in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain? It already
> checks once an iteration, anything more is just over kill.
Yeah, sounds good .
> Actually, I always thought that running PREEMPT_DESKTOP with soft and hard
> IRQS as threads was priority ceiling. It's just that all locks have the
> priority of MAX_RT_PRIO (no preemption allowed). OK, this doesn't apply
> to mutexes, but it does apply for spin_locks. :)
Interesting way to look at it .
Reminds me of the RT read/write locks, only one read or one writer at a
time, so it's really just a mutex ..
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-04-18 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-18 1:48 Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 12:20 ` Daniel Walker
2006-04-18 12:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 13:11 ` Daniel Walker
2006-04-18 13:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 13:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 14:09 ` Daniel Walker
2006-04-18 14:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 14:51 ` Daniel Walker
2006-04-18 13:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-18 15:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 16:14 ` Daniel Walker [this message]
2006-04-18 16:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 14:13 ` [PATCH -rt] Remove false BUG_ON from rtmutex.c Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 13:12 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1145376876.5447.58.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=dwalker@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®