Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-01

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Sun Jul 31 2005 - 05:44:19 EST

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> because end_buffer_async_read/write use bit_spin_(un)lock and I do not
> know how those interact with -RT.

bit_spin_lock is preemptible too - but it's not a too nice construct.
What seems to have happened in your trace is that local_irq_disable()
was used too in combination with bit-spinlocks, and a spinlock was taken
from within it. The best fix would be to get rid of bit-spinlocks ...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at