On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 02:50 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Lee Revell wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 13:05 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > Damn! The answer was right there in front of my eyes! Here's the cleanest > > > solution. I forgot about wait_on_bit_lock. I've converted all the locks > > > to use this instead. We probably need to get priority inheritence working > > > on this too someday, but for now it's better than wasting memory or > > > getting into deadlocks. > > > > > > > I am still not clear on why this did not hit with earlier kernels + > > PREEMPT_DESKTOP. Were the bitlocks introduced recently? Or was another > > lock-break patch dropped? > > > > When did you start seeing this? This code has been there as far back as > 2.6.7 (the earliest 2.6 kernel I still have laying around) and as far > back as Ingo's realtime-preempt-2.6.9-mm1-U10. Maybe the tracing didn't > start picking this up till later, or that you were just lucky that no > contention was happening on that lock.
Sometime after the RT preempt patches were rebased to mainline. I don't see how there could be contention as I am on a UP. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
