Re: [PATCH -rt] drop spurious rcu unlock

2007-07-23 Thread Daniel Walker
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 20:13 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 10:22:37AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: Strange rcu_read_unlock() which causes a imbalance, and boot hang.. I didn't notice a reason for it, and removing it allows my system to make progress. This

Re: [PATCH -rt] drop spurious rcu unlock

2007-07-23 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 06:37:19AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 20:13 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 10:22:37AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: Strange rcu_read_unlock() which causes a imbalance, and boot hang.. I didn't notice a reason for it,

Re: [PATCH -rt] drop spurious rcu unlock

2007-07-23 Thread Daniel Walker
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 07:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: I was wondering what kind of side effects would happen with the preemptible RCU .. Well, if you had only one rcu_read_lock() outstanding in the system, it would appear to be in a quiescent state, which would not be good. Given

[PATCH -rt] drop spurious rcu unlock

2007-07-22 Thread Daniel Walker
Strange rcu_read_unlock() which causes a imbalance, and boot hang.. I didn't notice a reason for it, and removing it allows my system to make progress. This should go into the preempt-realtime-sched.patch Signed-Off-By: Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index: linux-2.6.22.1/kernel/sched.c