Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1422306
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/8] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks |
| Date | 2016-06-14 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rK38e-1hi-33@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rHvDI-7fg-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <rHvNo-7ix-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <rK1zr-bN-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:42:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:56:37 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > + /* > > + * We should deboost before waking the top waiter task such that > > + * we don't run two tasks with the 'same' priority. This however > > + * can lead to prio-inversion if we would get preempted after > > + * the deboost but before waking our high-prio task, hence the > > + * preempt_disable before unlock. Pairs with preempt_enable() in > > + * rt_mutex_postunlock(); > > + */ > > + preempt_disable(); > > + > > This looks like a possible maintenance nightmare. Can we add some more > comments at the start of the functions that state that > rt_mutex_slowunlock() calls must be paired with rt_mutex_postunlock()? Please look at patches 4 and 5 that clean this up.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/8] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-06-14 20:50 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/8] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-14 22:30 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/8] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-06-15 18:20 +0200
csiph-web