* [PATCH 0/1] lib:atomic64 using raw_spin_lock_irq[save|resotre] for atomicity
@ 2011-09-01 1:27 Shan Hai
2011-09-01 1:28 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Shan Hai
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Shan Hai @ 2011-09-01 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm; +Cc: eric.dumazet, vapier, asharma, linux-kernel
The command 'perf top -e L1-dcache-loads' causes OOPS and hang up in the
following configuration.
Powerpc e500 core
OOPS on: 2.6.34.9 PREEMPT-RT
Whole system hangs up: 3.0.3 PREEMPT-RT
Listed the panic info. below.
Cause of the problem is that the atomic64_add_return is interrupted by the
performence counter interrupt, the interrupt handler calls atomic64_read,
failed at /build/linux/kernel/rtmutex.c:832! for the reason trying to hold the
same lock twice in the same context.
Replace the spin_lock_irq[save|restore] with raw_spin_lock_irq[save|restore]
could guarantee the atomicity of atomic64_* because the raw variant of the spin
lock disables interrupts during atomic64_* operations.
---
lib/atomic64.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
---
OOPS on 2.6.34.9+PREEMPT-RT:
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at /build/linux/kernel/rtmutex.c:832!
Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#2]
PREEMPT SMP NR_CPUS=8 LTT NESTING LEVEL : 0
P4080 DS
last sysfs file: /sys/devices/system/cpu/online
Modules linked in: ipv6(+) [last unloaded: scsi_wait_scan]
NIP: c068b218 LR: c068b1e0 CTR: 00000000
REGS: eb459ae0 TRAP: 0700 Tainted: G D (2.6.34.9-rt)
MSR: 00021002 <ME,CE> CR: 28000488 XER: 00000000
TASK = ea43d3b0[968] 'perf' THREAD: eb458000 CPU: 0
GPR00: 00000001 eb459b90 ea43d3b0 00021002 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000001
GPR08: 00000001 ea43d3b0 c068b1e0 00000000 28000482 10092c4c 7fffffff 80000000
GPR16: eb459d40 eb459c68 00000001 c2fa2098 eb459ec0 eac5a8e8 eac5a900 c0906308
GPR24: c0906334 00000000 eb459b9c c090d0ec 00021002 c09062e0 c09062e0 eb459b90
NIP [c068b218] rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x78/0x3a8
LR [c068b1e0] rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x40/0x3a8
Call Trace:
[eb459b90] [c068b1e0] rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x40/0x3a8 (unreliable)
[eb459c20] [c068bdb0] rt_spin_lock+0x40/0x98
[eb459c40] [c03d2a14] atomic64_read+0x48/0x84
[eb459c60] [c001aaf4] perf_event_interrupt+0xec/0x28c
[eb459d10] [c0010138] performance_monitor_exception+0x7c/0x150
[eb459d30] [c0014170] ret_from_except_full+0x0/0x4c
--- Exception: 2060 at lock_acquire+0x94/0x130
LR = lock_acquire+0x8c/0x130
[eb459e30] [c068bdf0] rt_spin_lock+0x80/0x98
[eb459e50] [c03d2884] atomic64_add_return+0x50/0x98
[eb459e70] [c00ff888] T.902+0x150/0x4f8
[eb459eb0] [c00ffedc] sys_perf_event_open+0x2ac/0x508
[eb459f40] [c0013b6c] ret_from_syscall+0x0/0x4
--- Exception: c00 at 0xfa8abe4
LR = 0x10016034
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/1] lib:atomic64 using raw_spin_lock_irq[save|resotre] for atomicity
2011-09-01 1:27 [PATCH 0/1] lib:atomic64 using raw_spin_lock_irq[save|resotre] for atomicity Shan Hai
@ 2011-09-01 1:28 ` Shan Hai
2011-09-01 2:37 ` [PATCH 1/1 -rt] " Yong Zhang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Shan Hai @ 2011-09-01 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm; +Cc: eric.dumazet, vapier, asharma, linux-kernel, Shan Hai
The spin_lock_irq[save|restore] could break the atomicity of the
atomic64_* operations in the PREEMPT-RT configuration, because
the spin_lock_irq[save|restore] themselves are preemptable in the
PREEMPT-RT, using raw variant of the spin lock could provide the
atomicity that atomic64_* need.
Signed-off-by: Shan Hai <haishan.bai@gmail.com>
---
lib/atomic64.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/atomic64.c b/lib/atomic64.c
index e12ae0d..26f524a 100644
--- a/lib/atomic64.c
+++ b/lib/atomic64.c
@@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ long long atomic64_read(const atomic64_t *v)
spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
long long val;
- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
val = v->counter;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
return val;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_read);
@@ -60,9 +60,9 @@ void atomic64_set(atomic64_t *v, long long i)
unsigned long flags;
spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
v->counter = i;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_set);
@@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ void atomic64_add(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
unsigned long flags;
spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
v->counter += a;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_add);
@@ -83,9 +83,9 @@ long long atomic64_add_return(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
long long val;
- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
val = v->counter += a;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
return val;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_add_return);
@@ -95,9 +95,9 @@ void atomic64_sub(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
unsigned long flags;
spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
v->counter -= a;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_sub);
@@ -107,9 +107,9 @@ long long atomic64_sub_return(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
long long val;
- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
val = v->counter -= a;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
return val;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_sub_return);
@@ -120,11 +120,11 @@ long long atomic64_dec_if_positive(atomic64_t *v)
spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
long long val;
- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
val = v->counter - 1;
if (val >= 0)
v->counter = val;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
return val;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_dec_if_positive);
@@ -135,11 +135,11 @@ long long atomic64_cmpxchg(atomic64_t *v, long long o, long long n)
spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
long long val;
- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
val = v->counter;
if (val == o)
v->counter = n;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
return val;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_cmpxchg);
@@ -150,10 +150,10 @@ long long atomic64_xchg(atomic64_t *v, long long new)
spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
long long val;
- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
val = v->counter;
v->counter = new;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
return val;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_xchg);
@@ -164,12 +164,12 @@ int atomic64_add_unless(atomic64_t *v, long long a, long long u)
spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
int ret = 0;
- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
if (v->counter != u) {
v->counter += a;
ret = 1;
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_add_unless);
--
1.7.4.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1 -rt] lib:atomic64 using raw_spin_lock_irq[save|resotre] for atomicity
2011-09-01 1:28 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Shan Hai
@ 2011-09-01 2:37 ` Yong Zhang
2011-09-01 3:02 ` Shan Hai
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yong Zhang @ 2011-09-01 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shan Hai
Cc: akpm, eric.dumazet, vapier, asharma, linux-kernel,
linux-rt-users, Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 09:28:00AM +0800, Shan Hai wrote:
> The spin_lock_irq[save|restore] could break the atomicity of the
> atomic64_* operations in the PREEMPT-RT configuration, because
> the spin_lock_irq[save|restore] themselves are preemptable in the
> PREEMPT-RT, using raw variant of the spin lock could provide the
> atomicity that atomic64_* need.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shan Hai <haishan.bai@gmail.com>
I think you could show your panic info also in the header.
And this should be routed to tglx(Cc'ing), and also to
linux-rt-users.
comments below:
> ---
> lib/atomic64.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/atomic64.c b/lib/atomic64.c
> index e12ae0d..26f524a 100644
> --- a/lib/atomic64.c
> +++ b/lib/atomic64.c
> @@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ long long atomic64_read(const atomic64_t *v)
> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
> long long val;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> val = v->counter;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
I think this is indeed a problem;
but I don't see you touch the declaration and initialising of the lock,
why?
Thanks,
Yong
> return val;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_read);
> @@ -60,9 +60,9 @@ void atomic64_set(atomic64_t *v, long long i)
> unsigned long flags;
> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> v->counter = i;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_set);
>
> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ void atomic64_add(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
> unsigned long flags;
> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> v->counter += a;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_add);
>
> @@ -83,9 +83,9 @@ long long atomic64_add_return(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
> long long val;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> val = v->counter += a;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> return val;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_add_return);
> @@ -95,9 +95,9 @@ void atomic64_sub(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
> unsigned long flags;
> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> v->counter -= a;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_sub);
>
> @@ -107,9 +107,9 @@ long long atomic64_sub_return(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
> long long val;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> val = v->counter -= a;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> return val;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_sub_return);
> @@ -120,11 +120,11 @@ long long atomic64_dec_if_positive(atomic64_t *v)
> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
> long long val;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> val = v->counter - 1;
> if (val >= 0)
> v->counter = val;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> return val;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_dec_if_positive);
> @@ -135,11 +135,11 @@ long long atomic64_cmpxchg(atomic64_t *v, long long o, long long n)
> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
> long long val;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> val = v->counter;
> if (val == o)
> v->counter = n;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> return val;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_cmpxchg);
> @@ -150,10 +150,10 @@ long long atomic64_xchg(atomic64_t *v, long long new)
> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
> long long val;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> val = v->counter;
> v->counter = new;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> return val;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_xchg);
> @@ -164,12 +164,12 @@ int atomic64_add_unless(atomic64_t *v, long long a, long long u)
> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
> int ret = 0;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> if (v->counter != u) {
> v->counter += a;
> ret = 1;
> }
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_add_unless);
> --
> 1.7.4.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Only stand for myself
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1 -rt] lib:atomic64 using raw_spin_lock_irq[save|resotre] for atomicity
2011-09-01 2:37 ` [PATCH 1/1 -rt] " Yong Zhang
@ 2011-09-01 3:02 ` Shan Hai
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Shan Hai @ 2011-09-01 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yong Zhang
Cc: akpm, eric.dumazet, vapier, asharma, linux-kernel,
linux-rt-users, Thomas Gleixner
On 09/01/2011 10:37 AM, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 09:28:00AM +0800, Shan Hai wrote:
>> The spin_lock_irq[save|restore] could break the atomicity of the
>> atomic64_* operations in the PREEMPT-RT configuration, because
>> the spin_lock_irq[save|restore] themselves are preemptable in the
>> PREEMPT-RT, using raw variant of the spin lock could provide the
>> atomicity that atomic64_* need.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shan Hai<haishan.bai@gmail.com>
> I think you could show your panic info also in the header.
>
> And this should be routed to tglx(Cc'ing), and also to
> linux-rt-users.
>
Got it.
comments below:
>> ---
>> lib/atomic64.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/atomic64.c b/lib/atomic64.c
>> index e12ae0d..26f524a 100644
>> --- a/lib/atomic64.c
>> +++ b/lib/atomic64.c
>> @@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ long long atomic64_read(const atomic64_t *v)
>> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>> long long val;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> val = v->counter;
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> I think this is indeed a problem;
> but I don't see you touch the declaration and initialising of the lock,
> why?
>
My fault, should replace the lock type too, thanks for the suggestion.
Best regards
Shan Hai
> Thanks,
> Yong
>
>> return val;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_read);
>> @@ -60,9 +60,9 @@ void atomic64_set(atomic64_t *v, long long i)
>> unsigned long flags;
>> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> v->counter = i;
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_set);
>>
>> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ void atomic64_add(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
>> unsigned long flags;
>> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> v->counter += a;
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_add);
>>
>> @@ -83,9 +83,9 @@ long long atomic64_add_return(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
>> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>> long long val;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> val = v->counter += a;
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> return val;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_add_return);
>> @@ -95,9 +95,9 @@ void atomic64_sub(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
>> unsigned long flags;
>> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> v->counter -= a;
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_sub);
>>
>> @@ -107,9 +107,9 @@ long long atomic64_sub_return(long long a, atomic64_t *v)
>> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>> long long val;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> val = v->counter -= a;
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> return val;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_sub_return);
>> @@ -120,11 +120,11 @@ long long atomic64_dec_if_positive(atomic64_t *v)
>> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>> long long val;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> val = v->counter - 1;
>> if (val>= 0)
>> v->counter = val;
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> return val;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_dec_if_positive);
>> @@ -135,11 +135,11 @@ long long atomic64_cmpxchg(atomic64_t *v, long long o, long long n)
>> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>> long long val;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> val = v->counter;
>> if (val == o)
>> v->counter = n;
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> return val;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_cmpxchg);
>> @@ -150,10 +150,10 @@ long long atomic64_xchg(atomic64_t *v, long long new)
>> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>> long long val;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> val = v->counter;
>> v->counter = new;
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> return val;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_xchg);
>> @@ -164,12 +164,12 @@ int atomic64_add_unless(atomic64_t *v, long long a, long long u)
>> spinlock_t *lock = lock_addr(v);
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>> if (v->counter != u) {
>> v->counter += a;
>> ret = 1;
>> }
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
>> return ret;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic64_add_unless);
>> --
>> 1.7.4.1
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-09-01 3:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-09-01 1:27 [PATCH 0/1] lib:atomic64 using raw_spin_lock_irq[save|resotre] for atomicity Shan Hai
2011-09-01 1:28 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Shan Hai
2011-09-01 2:37 ` [PATCH 1/1 -rt] " Yong Zhang
2011-09-01 3:02 ` Shan Hai
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.