From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:48:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201119184854.GY1437@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201119170259.GA2134472@elver.google.com>
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 06:02:59PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 07:14AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 01:53:57PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 03:38PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:56:21PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > I think I figured out one piece of the puzzle. Bisection keeps pointing
> > > > > me at some -rcu merge commit, which kept throwing me off. Nor did it
> > > > > help that reproduction is a bit flaky. However, I think there are 2
> > > > > independent problems, but the manifestation of 1 problem triggers the
> > > > > 2nd problem:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. problem: slowed forward progress (workqueue lockup / RCU stall reports)
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. problem: DEADLOCK which causes complete system lockup
> > > > >
> > > > > | ...
> > > > > | CPU0
> > > > > | ----
> > > > > | lock(rcu_node_0);
> > > > > | <Interrupt>
> > > > > | lock(rcu_node_0);
> > > > > |
> > > > > | *** DEADLOCK ***
> > > > > |
> > > > > | 1 lock held by event_benchmark/105:
> > > > > | #0: ffffbb6e0b804458 (rcu_node_0){?.-.}-{2:2}, at: print_other_cpu_stall kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:493 [inline]
> > > > > | #0: ffffbb6e0b804458 (rcu_node_0){?.-.}-{2:2}, at: check_cpu_stall kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:652 [inline]
> > > > > | #0: ffffbb6e0b804458 (rcu_node_0){?.-.}-{2:2}, at: rcu_pending kernel/rcu/tree.c:3752 [inline]
> > > > > | #0: ffffbb6e0b804458 (rcu_node_0){?.-.}-{2:2}, at: rcu_sched_clock_irq+0x428/0xd40 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2581
> > > > > | ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Problem 2 can with reasonable confidence (5 trials) be fixed by reverting:
> > > > >
> > > > > rcu: Don't invoke try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() with irqs disabled
> > > > >
> > > > > At which point the system always boots to user space -- albeit with a
> > > > > bunch of warnings still (attached). The supposed "good" version doesn't
> > > > > end up with all those warnings deterministically, so I couldn't say if
> > > > > the warnings are expected due to recent changes or not (Arm64 QEMU
> > > > > emulation, 1 CPU, and lots of debugging tools on).
> > > > >
> > > > > Does any of that make sense?
> > > >
> > > > Marco, it makes all too much sense! :-/
> > > >
> > > > Does the patch below help?
> > > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > commit 444ef3bbd0f243b912fdfd51f326704f8ee872bf
> > > > Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > > Date: Sat Aug 29 10:22:24 2020 -0700
> > > >
> > > > sched/core: Allow try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() with irqs disabled
> > >
> > > My assumption is that this is a replacement for "rcu: Don't invoke
> > > try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() with irqs disabled", right?
> >
> > Hmmm... It was actually intended to be in addition.
> >
> > > That seems to have the same result (same test setup) as only reverting
> > > "rcu: Don't invoke..." does: still results in a bunch of workqueue
> > > lockup warnings and RCU stall warnings, but boots to user space. I
> > > attached a log. If the warnings are expected (are they?), then it looks
> > > fine to me.
> >
> > No, they are not at all expected, but might be a different symptom
> > of the original problem. Please see below.
> >
> > > (And just in case: with "rcu: Don't invoke..." and "sched/core:
> > > Allow..." both applied I still get DEADLOCKs -- but that's probably
> > > expected.)
> >
> > As noted earlier, it is a surprise. Could you please send me the
> > console output?
>
> I've attached the output of a run with both commits applied.
Got it, thank you!
> > > Testing all events: OK
> > > hrtimer: interrupt took 17120368 ns
> > > Running tests again, along with the function tracer
> > > Running tests on all trace events:
> > > Testing all events:
> > > BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=0 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 stuck for 12s!
> > > Showing busy workqueues and worker pools:
> > > workqueue events: flags=0x0
> > > pwq 0: cpus=0 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 active=1/256 refcnt=2
> > > pending: vmstat_shepherd
> > > BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=0 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 stuck for 17s!
> > > Showing busy workqueues and worker pools:
> > > workqueue events: flags=0x0
> > > pwq 0: cpus=0 node=0 flags=0x0 nice=0 active=1/256 refcnt=2
> > > pending: vmstat_shepherd
> > > workqueue events_power_efficient: flags=0x82
> > > pwq 2: cpus=0 flags=0x4 nice=0 active=1/256 refcnt=3
> > > pending: neigh_periodic_work
> > > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:758 rcu_check_gp_start_stall kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:750 [inline]
> > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:758 rcu_check_gp_start_stall.isra.0+0x14c/0x210 kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:711
> >
> > I have different line numbering,
>
> This is still using next-20201110. I'll rerun with latest -next as well.
No problem, as it looks like next-20201105 is a reasonable approximation.
> > but the only warning that I see in this
> > function is the one complaining that RCU has been ignoring a request to
> > start a grace period for too long. This usually happens because the RCU
> > grace-period kthread (named "rcu_preempt" in your case, but can also be
> > named "rcu_sched") is being prevented from running, but can be caused
> > by other things as well.
> >
> > > Modules linked in:
> > > CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.10.0-rc3-next-20201110-00003-g920304642405-dirty #30
> > > Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> > > pstate: 20000085 (nzCv daIf -PAN -UAO -TCO BTYPE=--)
> > > pc : rcu_check_gp_start_stall kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:750 [inline]
> > > pc : rcu_check_gp_start_stall.isra.0+0x14c/0x210 kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:711
> > > lr : __xchg_mb arch/arm64/include/asm/cmpxchg.h:88 [inline]
> > > lr : atomic_xchg include/asm-generic/atomic-instrumented.h:615 [inline]
> > > lr : rcu_check_gp_start_stall kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:751 [inline]
> > > lr : rcu_check_gp_start_stall.isra.0+0x148/0x210 kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:711
> >
> > Two program counters and four link registers? Awesome! ;-)
>
> Ah I'm using syzkaller's symbolizer, which duplicates lines if there was
> an inline function (remove all the "[inline]" and it should make sense,
> but the "[inline]" tell you the actual line). Obviously for things like
> this it's a bit unintuitive. :-)
Very useful, though, and a big THANK YOU to those who made it happen!
> > > sp : ffff800010003d20
> > > x29: ffff800010003d20 x28: ffff274ac3a10000
> > > x27: 0000000000000000 x26: ffff274b3dbe72d8
> > > x25: ffffbcb867722000 x24: 0000000000000000
> > > x23: 0000000000000000 x22: ffffbcb8681d1260
> > > x21: ffffbcb86735b000 x20: ffffbcb867404440
> > > x19: ffffbcb867404440 x18: 0000000000000123
> > > x17: ffffbcb865d400f0 x16: 0000000000000002
> > > x15: 0000000000000002 x14: 0000000000000000
> > > x13: 003d090000000000 x12: 00001e8480000000
> > > x11: ffffbcb867958980 x10: ffff800010003cf0
> > > x9 : ffffbcb864f4b7c8 x8 : 0000000000000080
> > > x7 : 0000000000000026 x6 : ffffbcb86774e4c0
> > > x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 00000000d4001f4b
> > > x3 : 0000000000000000 x2 : 0000000000000000
> > > x1 : 0000000000000001 x0 : 0000000000000000
> > > Call trace:
> > > rcu_check_gp_start_stall kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:750 [inline]
> > > rcu_check_gp_start_stall.isra.0+0x14c/0x210 kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:711
> > > rcu_core+0x168/0x9e0 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2719
> > > rcu_core_si+0x18/0x28 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2737
> >
> > The RCU_SOFTIRQ handler is causing this checking to occur, for whatever
> > that is worth.
> >
> > > __do_softirq+0x188/0x6b4 kernel/softirq.c:298
> > > do_softirq_own_stack include/linux/interrupt.h:568 [inline]
> > > invoke_softirq kernel/softirq.c:393 [inline]
> > > __irq_exit_rcu kernel/softirq.c:423 [inline]
> > > irq_exit+0x1cc/0x1e0 kernel/softirq.c:447
> > > __handle_domain_irq+0xb4/0x130 kernel/irq/irqdesc.c:690
> > > handle_domain_irq include/linux/irqdesc.h:170 [inline]
> > > gic_handle_irq+0x70/0x108 drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c:370
> > > el1_irq+0xc0/0x180 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:651
> > > arch_local_irq_restore+0x8/0x10 arch/arm64/include/asm/irqflags.h:124
> > > release_probes kernel/tracepoint.c:113 [inline]
> > > tracepoint_remove_func kernel/tracepoint.c:315 [inline]
> > > tracepoint_probe_unregister+0x220/0x378 kernel/tracepoint.c:382
> > > trace_event_reg+0x58/0x150 kernel/trace/trace_events.c:298
> > > __ftrace_event_enable_disable+0x424/0x608 kernel/trace/trace_events.c:412
> > > ftrace_event_enable_disable kernel/trace/trace_events.c:495 [inline]
> > > __ftrace_set_clr_event_nolock+0x120/0x180 kernel/trace/trace_events.c:811
> > > __ftrace_set_clr_event+0x60/0x90 kernel/trace/trace_events.c:833
> > > event_trace_self_tests+0xd4/0x114 kernel/trace/trace_events.c:3661
> > > event_trace_self_test_with_function kernel/trace/trace_events.c:3734 [inline]
> > > event_trace_self_tests_init+0x88/0xa8 kernel/trace/trace_events.c:3747
> > > do_one_initcall+0xa4/0x500 init/main.c:1212
> > > do_initcall_level init/main.c:1285 [inline]
> > > do_initcalls init/main.c:1301 [inline]
> > > do_basic_setup init/main.c:1321 [inline]
> > > kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x3c4 init/main.c:1521
> > > kernel_init+0x20/0x16c init/main.c:1410
> > > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x34 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:961
> > > irq event stamp: 3274113
> > > hardirqs last enabled at (3274112): [<ffffbcb864f8aee4>] rcu_core+0x974/0x9e0 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2716
> > > hardirqs last disabled at (3274113): [<ffffbcb866233bf0>] __raw_spin_lock_irqsave include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:108 [inline]
> > > hardirqs last disabled at (3274113): [<ffffbcb866233bf0>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0xb8/0x14c kernel/locking/spinlock.c:159
> > > softirqs last enabled at (3272576): [<ffffbcb864e10b80>] __do_softirq+0x630/0x6b4 kernel/softirq.c:325
> > > softirqs last disabled at (3274101): [<ffffbcb864ec6c54>] do_softirq_own_stack include/linux/interrupt.h:568 [inline]
> > > softirqs last disabled at (3274101): [<ffffbcb864ec6c54>] invoke_softirq kernel/softirq.c:393 [inline]
> > > softirqs last disabled at (3274101): [<ffffbcb864ec6c54>] __irq_exit_rcu kernel/softirq.c:423 [inline]
> > > softirqs last disabled at (3274101): [<ffffbcb864ec6c54>] irq_exit+0x1cc/0x1e0 kernel/softirq.c:447
> > > ---[ end trace 902768efebf5a607 ]---
> > > rcu: rcu_preempt: wait state: RCU_GP_WAIT_GPS(1) ->state: 0x0 delta ->gp_activity 4452 ->gp_req_activity 3848 ->gp_wake_time 3848 ->gp_wake_seq 2696 ->gp_seq 2696 ->gp_seq_needed 2700 ->gp_flags 0x1
> >
> > The last thing that RCU's grace-period kthread did was to go to sleep
> > waiting for a grace-period request (RCU_GP_WAIT_GPS).
> >
> > > rcu: rcu_node 0:0 ->gp_seq 2696 ->gp_seq_needed 2700
> > > rcu: RCU callbacks invoked since boot: 2583
> > > rcu_tasks: RTGS_WAIT_CBS(11) since 567120 g:1 i:0/0 k.
> > > rcu_tasks_rude: RTGS_WAIT_CBS(11) since 567155 g:1 i:0/1 k.
> > > rcu_tasks_trace: RTGS_INIT(0) since 4295464549 g:0 i:0/0 k. N0 h:0/0/0
> > > rcu: INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
> > > (detected by 0, t=3752 jiffies, g=2705, q=8)
> > > rcu: All QSes seen, last rcu_preempt kthread activity 557 (4295471128-4295470571), jiffies_till_next_fqs=1, root ->qsmask 0x0
> > > rcu: rcu_preempt kthread starved for 557 jiffies! g2705 f0x2 RCU_GP_CLEANUP(7) ->state=0x0 ->cpu=0
> >
> > And here we see that RCU's grace-period kthread has in fact been starved.
> >
> > This kthread is now in RCU_GP_CLEANUP, perhaps because of the wakeup that is
> > sent in rcu_check_gp_kthread_starvation().
> >
> > My current guess is that this is a consequence of the earlier failures,
> > but who knows?
>
> I can try bisection again, or reverting some commits that might be
> suspicious? But we'd need some selection of suspicious commits.
The report claims that one of the rcu_node ->lock fields is held
with interrupts enabled, which would indeed be bad. Except that all
of the stack traces that it shows have these locks held within the
scheduling-clock interrupt handler. Now with the "rcu: Don't invoke
try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() with irqs disabled" but without the
"sched/core: Allow try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() with irqs disabled"
commit, I understand why. With both, I don't see how this happens.
At this point, I am reduced to adding lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled()
calls at various points in that code, as shown in the patch below.
At this point, I would guess that your first priority would be the
initial bug rather than this following issue, but you never know, this
might well help diagnose the initial bug.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit ccedf00693ef60f7c06d23490fc41bb60dd43dc3
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Date: Thu Nov 19 10:13:06 2020 -0800
rcu: Add lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() to rcu_sched_clock_irq() and callees
This commit adds a number of lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() calls
to rcu_sched_clock_irq() and a number of the functions that it calls.
The point of this is to help track down a situation where lockdep appears
to be insisting that interrupts are enabled within these functions, which
should only ever be invoked from the scheduling-clock interrupt handler.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201111133813.GA81547@elver.google.com/
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 2b3274c..1d956f9 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2580,6 +2580,7 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
void rcu_sched_clock_irq(int user)
{
trace_rcu_utilization(TPS("Start scheduler-tick"));
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
raw_cpu_inc(rcu_data.ticks_this_gp);
/* The load-acquire pairs with the store-release setting to true. */
if (smp_load_acquire(this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs))) {
@@ -2593,6 +2594,7 @@ void rcu_sched_clock_irq(int user)
rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq(user);
if (rcu_pending(user))
invoke_rcu_core();
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
trace_rcu_utilization(TPS("End scheduler-tick"));
}
@@ -3761,6 +3763,8 @@ static int rcu_pending(int user)
struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
+
/* Check for CPU stalls, if enabled. */
check_cpu_stall(rdp);
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index 642ebd6..f7aa41c 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -682,6 +682,7 @@ static void rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq(int user)
{
struct task_struct *t = current;
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
if (user || rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle()) {
rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch(current);
}
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
index 4e3aecd..f276d8e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
@@ -267,6 +267,7 @@ static int rcu_print_task_stall(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
struct task_struct *t;
struct task_struct *ts[8];
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
if (!rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp))
return 0;
pr_err("\tTasks blocked on level-%d rcu_node (CPUs %d-%d):",
@@ -291,6 +292,7 @@ static int rcu_print_task_stall(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
".q"[rscr.rs.b.need_qs],
".e"[rscr.rs.b.exp_hint],
".l"[rscr.on_blkd_list]);
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
put_task_struct(t);
ndetected++;
}
@@ -527,6 +529,8 @@ static void print_other_cpu_stall(unsigned long gp_seq, unsigned long gps)
struct rcu_node *rnp;
long totqlen = 0;
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
+
/* Kick and suppress, if so configured. */
rcu_stall_kick_kthreads();
if (rcu_stall_is_suppressed())
@@ -548,6 +552,7 @@ static void print_other_cpu_stall(unsigned long gp_seq, unsigned long gps)
}
}
ndetected += rcu_print_task_stall(rnp, flags); // Releases rnp->lock.
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
}
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
@@ -594,6 +599,8 @@ static void print_cpu_stall(unsigned long gps)
struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root();
long totqlen = 0;
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
+
/* Kick and suppress, if so configured. */
rcu_stall_kick_kthreads();
if (rcu_stall_is_suppressed())
@@ -649,6 +656,7 @@ static void check_cpu_stall(struct rcu_data *rdp)
unsigned long js;
struct rcu_node *rnp;
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
if ((rcu_stall_is_suppressed() && !READ_ONCE(rcu_kick_kthreads)) ||
!rcu_gp_in_progress())
return;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-19 18:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-10 13:53 [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations Marco Elver
2020-11-10 14:25 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2020-11-10 14:53 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-10 23:23 ` Anders Roxell
2020-11-11 8:29 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-11 13:38 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-11 18:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-11 18:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 18:34 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-11 19:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 20:21 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 0:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-12 12:49 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 16:14 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 17:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-12 18:12 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 20:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-13 11:06 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-13 17:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-13 17:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-17 10:52 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-17 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-18 22:56 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-18 23:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 12:53 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-19 15:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 17:02 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-19 18:48 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2020-11-19 19:38 ` linux-next: stall warnings and deadlock on Arm64 (was: [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling...) Marco Elver
2020-11-19 19:38 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-19 21:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 21:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 22:53 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-19 22:53 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-20 10:30 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 10:30 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 14:03 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 14:03 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-23 19:32 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-23 19:32 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-24 14:03 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-24 14:03 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-24 15:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-24 15:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-24 19:43 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-24 19:43 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-24 20:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-24 20:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-24 19:30 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-24 19:30 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-25 9:45 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-25 9:45 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-25 10:28 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-25 10:28 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 14:19 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 14:19 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 14:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 14:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 15:22 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 15:22 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 17:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 17:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 18:02 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 18:02 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 18:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 18:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 15:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 15:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 18:17 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 18:17 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 18:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 18:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 19:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 19:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 19:22 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 19:22 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 19:27 ` [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations Steven Rostedt
2020-11-23 15:27 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-23 16:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-23 16:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-23 18:53 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-23 18:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-24 2:59 ` Boqun Feng
2020-11-24 3:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 18:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 15:01 ` Anders Roxell
2020-11-11 15:22 ` Marco Elver
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201119184854.GY1437@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anders.roxell@linaro.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.