LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>,
	Joe Korty <joe.korty@concurrent-rt.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 07/11] rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe
Date: Sun,  8 Aug 2021 09:22:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210808072217.573372045@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210808072217.322468704@linuxfoundation.org>

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

[ Upstream commit b4abf91047cf054f203dcfac97e1038388826937 ]

Sasha reported a lockdep splat about a potential deadlock between RCU boosting
rtmutex and the posix timer it_lock.

CPU0					CPU1

rtmutex_lock(&rcu->rt_mutex)
  spin_lock(&rcu->rt_mutex.wait_lock)
					local_irq_disable()
					spin_lock(&timer->it_lock)
					spin_lock(&rcu->mutex.wait_lock)
--> Interrupt
    spin_lock(&timer->it_lock)

This is caused by the following code sequence on CPU1

     rcu_read_lock()
     x = lookup();
     if (x)
     	spin_lock_irqsave(&x->it_lock);
     rcu_read_unlock();
     return x;

We could fix that in the posix timer code by keeping rcu read locked across
the spinlocked and irq disabled section, but the above sequence is common and
there is no reason not to support it.

Taking rt_mutex.wait_lock irq safe prevents the deadlock.

Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Joe Korty <joe.korty@concurrent-rt.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c |  135 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -163,13 +163,14 @@ static inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters
  * 2) Drop lock->wait_lock
  * 3) Try to unlock the lock with cmpxchg
  */
-static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock)
+static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+					unsigned long flags)
 	__releases(lock->wait_lock)
 {
 	struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
 
 	clear_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 	/*
 	 * If a new waiter comes in between the unlock and the cmpxchg
 	 * we have two situations:
@@ -211,11 +212,12 @@ static inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters
 /*
  * Simple slow path only version: lock->owner is protected by lock->wait_lock.
  */
-static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock)
+static inline bool unlock_rt_mutex_safe(struct rt_mutex *lock,
+					unsigned long flags)
 	__releases(lock->wait_lock)
 {
 	lock->owner = NULL;
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 	return true;
 }
 #endif
@@ -497,7 +499,6 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 	int ret = 0, depth = 0;
 	struct rt_mutex *lock;
 	bool detect_deadlock;
-	unsigned long flags;
 	bool requeue = true;
 
 	detect_deadlock = rt_mutex_cond_detect_deadlock(orig_waiter, chwalk);
@@ -540,7 +541,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 	/*
 	 * [1] Task cannot go away as we did a get_task() before !
 	 */
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * [2] Get the waiter on which @task is blocked on.
@@ -624,7 +625,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 	 * operations.
 	 */
 	if (!raw_spin_trylock(&lock->wait_lock)) {
-		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
 		cpu_relax();
 		goto retry;
 	}
@@ -655,7 +656,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 		/*
 		 * No requeue[7] here. Just release @task [8]
 		 */
-		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+		raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
 		put_task_struct(task);
 
 		/*
@@ -663,14 +664,14 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 		 * If there is no owner of the lock, end of chain.
 		 */
 		if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock)) {
-			raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+			raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 			return 0;
 		}
 
 		/* [10] Grab the next task, i.e. owner of @lock */
 		task = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
 		get_task_struct(task);
-		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+		raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
 
 		/*
 		 * No requeue [11] here. We just do deadlock detection.
@@ -685,8 +686,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 		top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
 
 		/* [13] Drop locks */
-		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
-		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 		/* If owner is not blocked, end of chain. */
 		if (!next_lock)
@@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 	rt_mutex_enqueue(lock, waiter);
 
 	/* [8] Release the task */
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
 	put_task_struct(task);
 
 	/*
@@ -725,14 +726,14 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 		 */
 		if (prerequeue_top_waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock))
 			wake_up_process(rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)->task);
-		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 		return 0;
 	}
 
 	/* [10] Grab the next task, i.e. the owner of @lock */
 	task = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
 	get_task_struct(task);
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
 
 	/* [11] requeue the pi waiters if necessary */
 	if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
@@ -786,8 +787,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 	top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
 
 	/* [13] Drop the locks */
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Make the actual exit decisions [12], based on the stored
@@ -810,7 +811,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 	goto again;
 
  out_unlock_pi:
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
  out_put_task:
 	put_task_struct(task);
 
@@ -820,7 +821,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 /*
  * Try to take an rt-mutex
  *
- * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held.
+ * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled
  *
  * @lock:   The lock to be acquired.
  * @task:   The task which wants to acquire the lock
@@ -830,8 +831,6 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
 static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, struct task_struct *task,
 				struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
 {
-	unsigned long flags;
-
 	/*
 	 * Before testing whether we can acquire @lock, we set the
 	 * RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS bit in @lock->owner. This forces all
@@ -916,7 +915,7 @@ static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct r
 	 * case, but conditionals are more expensive than a redundant
 	 * store.
 	 */
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
 	task->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
 	/*
 	 * Finish the lock acquisition. @task is the new owner. If
@@ -925,7 +924,7 @@ static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct r
 	 */
 	if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock))
 		rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
 
 takeit:
 	/* We got the lock. */
@@ -945,7 +944,7 @@ takeit:
  *
  * Prepare waiter and propagate pi chain
  *
- * This must be called with lock->wait_lock held.
+ * This must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled
  */
 static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 				   struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
@@ -956,7 +955,6 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
 	struct rt_mutex_waiter *top_waiter = waiter;
 	struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
 	int chain_walk = 0, res;
-	unsigned long flags;
 
 	/*
 	 * Early deadlock detection. We really don't want the task to
@@ -970,7 +968,7 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
 	if (owner == task)
 		return -EDEADLK;
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
 	__rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
 	waiter->task = task;
 	waiter->lock = lock;
@@ -983,12 +981,12 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
 
 	task->pi_blocked_on = waiter;
 
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
 
 	if (!owner)
 		return 0;
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&owner->pi_lock);
 	if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
 		rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(owner, top_waiter);
 		rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(owner, waiter);
@@ -1003,7 +1001,7 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
 	/* Store the lock on which owner is blocked or NULL */
 	next_lock = task_blocked_on_lock(owner);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&owner->pi_lock);
 	/*
 	 * Even if full deadlock detection is on, if the owner is not
 	 * blocked itself, we can avoid finding this out in the chain
@@ -1019,12 +1017,12 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
 	 */
 	get_task_struct(owner);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	res = rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, chwalk, lock,
 					 next_lock, waiter, task);
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	return res;
 }
@@ -1033,15 +1031,14 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struc
  * Remove the top waiter from the current tasks pi waiter tree and
  * queue it up.
  *
- * Called with lock->wait_lock held.
+ * Called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled.
  */
 static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
 				    struct rt_mutex *lock)
 {
 	struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter;
-	unsigned long flags;
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&current->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&current->pi_lock);
 
 	waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
 
@@ -1063,7 +1060,7 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(stru
 	 */
 	lock->owner = (void *) RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS;
 
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&current->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);
 
 	wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
 }
@@ -1071,7 +1068,7 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(stru
 /*
  * Remove a waiter from a lock and give up
  *
- * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and
+ * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled. I must
  * have just failed to try_to_take_rt_mutex().
  */
 static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock,
@@ -1080,12 +1077,11 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
 	bool is_top_waiter = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock));
 	struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
 	struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
-	unsigned long flags;
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&current->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&current->pi_lock);
 	rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
 	current->pi_blocked_on = NULL;
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&current->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Only update priority if the waiter was the highest priority
@@ -1094,7 +1090,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
 	if (!owner || !is_top_waiter)
 		return;
 
-	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_lock(&owner->pi_lock);
 
 	rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(owner, waiter);
 
@@ -1106,7 +1102,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
 	/* Store the lock on which owner is blocked or NULL */
 	next_lock = task_blocked_on_lock(owner);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock(&owner->pi_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Don't walk the chain, if the owner task is not blocked
@@ -1118,12 +1114,12 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute
 	/* gets dropped in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain()! */
 	get_task_struct(owner);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(owner, RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK, lock,
 				   next_lock, NULL, current);
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -1167,11 +1163,11 @@ void rt_mutex_init_waiter(struct rt_mute
  * __rt_mutex_slowlock() - Perform the wait-wake-try-to-take loop
  * @lock:		 the rt_mutex to take
  * @state:		 the state the task should block in (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
- * 			 or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
+ *			 or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
  * @timeout:		 the pre-initialized and started timer, or NULL for none
  * @waiter:		 the pre-initialized rt_mutex_waiter
  *
- * lock->wait_lock must be held by the caller.
+ * Must be called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled
  */
 static int __sched
 __rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
@@ -1199,13 +1195,13 @@ __rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *loc
 				break;
 		}
 
-		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 		debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter);
 
 		schedule();
 
-		raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 		set_current_state(state);
 	}
 
@@ -1242,15 +1238,24 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 		  enum rtmutex_chainwalk chwalk)
 {
 	struct rt_mutex_waiter waiter;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int ret = 0;
 
 	rt_mutex_init_waiter(&waiter);
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	/*
+	 * Technically we could use raw_spin_[un]lock_irq() here, but this can
+	 * be called in early boot if the cmpxchg() fast path is disabled
+	 * (debug, no architecture support). In this case we will acquire the
+	 * rtmutex with lock->wait_lock held. But we cannot unconditionally
+	 * enable interrupts in that early boot case. So we need to use the
+	 * irqsave/restore variants.
+	 */
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	/* Try to acquire the lock again: */
 	if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, current, NULL)) {
-		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 		return 0;
 	}
 
@@ -1279,7 +1284,7 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 	 */
 	fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	/* Remove pending timer: */
 	if (unlikely(timeout))
@@ -1308,6 +1313,7 @@ static inline int __rt_mutex_slowtrylock
  */
 static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
 {
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int ret;
 
 	/*
@@ -1319,14 +1325,14 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(s
 		return 0;
 
 	/*
-	 * The mutex has currently no owner. Lock the wait lock and
-	 * try to acquire the lock.
+	 * The mutex has currently no owner. Lock the wait lock and try to
+	 * acquire the lock. We use irqsave here to support early boot calls.
 	 */
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	ret = __rt_mutex_slowtrylock(lock);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -1338,7 +1344,10 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(s
 static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 					struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
 {
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	unsigned long flags;
+
+	/* irqsave required to support early boot calls */
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	debug_rt_mutex_unlock(lock);
 
@@ -1375,10 +1384,10 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(
 	 */
 	while (!rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock)) {
 		/* Drops lock->wait_lock ! */
-		if (unlock_rt_mutex_safe(lock) == true)
+		if (unlock_rt_mutex_safe(lock, flags) == true)
 			return false;
 		/* Relock the rtmutex and try again */
-		raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -1389,7 +1398,7 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(
 	 */
 	mark_wakeup_next_waiter(wake_q, lock);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	/* check PI boosting */
 	return true;
@@ -1680,10 +1689,10 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, task, NULL)) {
-		raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 		return 1;
 	}
 
@@ -1704,7 +1713,7 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_
 	if (unlikely(ret))
 		remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter);
 
@@ -1754,14 +1763,14 @@ int rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(struct rt_m
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
 
 	/* sleep on the mutex */
 	ret = __rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, to, waiter);
 
-	raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
 
 	return ret;
 }



  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-08-08  7:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-08  7:22 [PATCH 4.4 00/11] 4.4.280-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08  7:22 ` [PATCH 4.4 01/11] futex: Rename free_pi_state() to put_pi_state() Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08  7:22 ` [PATCH 4.4 02/11] futex: Cleanup refcounting Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08  7:22 ` [PATCH 4.4 03/11] futex,rt_mutex: Introduce rt_mutex_init_waiter() Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08  7:22 ` [PATCH 4.4 04/11] futex: Pull rt_mutex_futex_unlock() out from under hb->lock Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08  7:22 ` [PATCH 4.4 05/11] futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock() Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08  7:22 ` [PATCH 4.4 06/11] futex: Futex_unlock_pi() determinism Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08  7:22 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2021-08-08  7:22 ` [PATCH 4.4 08/11] futex: Handle transient "ownerless" rtmutex state correctly Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08  7:22 ` [PATCH 4.4 09/11] futex: Avoid freeing an active timer Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08  7:22 ` [PATCH 4.4 10/11] futex,rt_mutex: Fix rt_mutex_cleanup_proxy_lock() Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08  7:22 ` [PATCH 4.4 11/11] rcu: Update documentation of rcu_read_unlock() Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-08 16:00 ` [PATCH 4.4 00/11] 4.4.280-rc1 review Guenter Roeck
2021-08-10 15:44   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-09 14:14 ` Naresh Kamboju
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-08-02 13:46 [PATCH 4.4 00/11] Fix a potential infinite loop in RT futex-pi scenarios Zhen Lei
2021-08-02 13:46 ` [PATCH 4.4 07/11] rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe Zhen Lei

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=20210808072217.573372045@linuxfoundation.org \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=joe.korty@concurrent-rt.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thunder.leizhen@huawei.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 4.4 07/11] rtmutex: Make wait_lock irq safe' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).