Re: PREEMPT_RT vs bcache

[Kent Overstreet]

On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:08:42PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 13:53 -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:28:18PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > As Kent said back in 2011 (commit 84759c6d18c5), bcache needs
> > > {down,up}_read_non_owner().  But these are not implemented by the -rt
> > > patchset when PREEMPT_RT_FULL is enabled.  Can they be added, or is
> > > there a fundamental conflict here?
> > 
> > You should be able to cherry pick
> > 84759c6d18c5144432781ddca037d929ee9db8a5 (Revert "rw_semaphore: remove
> > up/down_read_non_owner") - that went in when bcache was merged.
> 
> That's the commit I was referring to.  But the -rt patchset has a
> separate implementation of semaphores for PREEMPT_RT_FULL.

Ahh - that makes more sense...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/