All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com>
To: <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: <acme@kernel.org>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	<alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	<davem@davemloft.net>, <jolsa@redhat.com>, <jthierry@redhat.com>,
	<keescook@chromium.org>, <kernelfans@gmail.com>,
	<lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	<masahiroy@kernel.org>, <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	<maz@kernel.org>, <mcgrof@kernel.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
	<namhyung@kernel.org>, <nixiaoming@huawei.com>,
	<peterz@infradead.org>, <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	<sumit.garg@linaro.org>, <wangqing@vivo.com>, <will@kernel.org>,
	<yj.chiang@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kernel/watchdog: Adapt the watchdog_hld interface for async model
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 00:32:57 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220228163257.2411-1-lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YhygkafOHc6eeP9f@alley>

Yes, there is no race now, the condition is much like a verbose checking for
the state. I'll remove it.


> > I think it make sense to remove WARN now becasue it looks verbosely...
> > However, I would rather change the following printk to
> > "Delayed init for lockup detector failed."
> 
> I would print both messages. The above message says what failed.
> 
> 
> > > > +		pr_info("Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled\n");
> 
> And this message explains what is the result of the above failure.
> It is not obvious.

Yes, make sense, let's print both.


> 
> > > > +	}
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/* Ensure the check is called after the initialization of PMU driver */
> > > > +static int __init lockup_detector_check(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	if (detector_delay_init_state < DELAY_INIT_WAIT)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (WARN_ON(detector_delay_init_state == DELAY_INIT_WAIT)) {
> > > 
> > > Again. Is WARN_ON() needed?
> > > 
> > > Also the condition looks wrong. IMHO, this is the expected state.
> > > 
> > 
> > This does expected DELAY_INIT_READY here, which means,
> > every one who comes here to be checked should be READY and WARN if you're
> > still in WAIT state, and which means the previous lockup_detector_delay_init()
> > failed.
> 
> No, DELAY_INIT_READY is set below. DELAY_INIT_WAIT is valid value here.
> It means that lockup_detector_delay_init() work is queued.
> 

Sorry, I didn't describe clearly,

For the call flow:

kernel_init_freeable()
-> lockup_detector_init()
--> queue work(lockup_detector_delay_init) with state registering
    to DELAY_INIT_WAIT.
---> lockup_detector_delay_init wait DELAY_INIT_READY that set
     by armv8_pmu_driver_init().
----> device_initcall(armv8_pmu_driver_init),
      set state to READY and wake_up the work. (in 5th patch)
-----> lockup_detector_delay_init recieves READY and calls
       watchdog_nmi_probe() again.
------> late_initcall_sync(lockup_detector_check);
        check if the state is READY? In other words, did the arch driver
        finish probing watchdog between "queue work" and "late_initcall_sync()"?
        If not, we forcely set state to READY and wake_up again.


> 
> > IMO, either keeping or removing WARN is fine with me.
> > 
> > I think I'll remove WARN and add
> > pr_info("Delayed init checking for lockup detector failed, retry for once.");
> > inside the `if (detector_delay_init_state == DELAY_INIT_WAIT)`
> > 
> > Or would you have any other suggestion? thanks.
> > 
> > > > +		detector_delay_init_state = DELAY_INIT_READY;
> > > > +		wake_up(&hld_detector_wait);
> 
> I see another problem now. We should always call the wake up here
> when the work was queued. Otherwise, the worker will stay blocked
> forewer.
> 
> The worker will also get blocked when the late_initcall is called
> before the work is proceed by a worker.

lockup_detector_check() is used to solve the blocking state.
As the description above, if state is WAIT when lockup_detector_check(),
we would forcely set state to READY can wake up the work for once.
After lockup_detector_check(), nobody cares about the state and the worker
also finishes its work.

> 
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	flush_work(&detector_work);
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +late_initcall_sync(lockup_detector_check);
> 
> 
> OK, I think that the three states are too complicated. I suggest to
> use only a single bool. Something like:
> 
> static bool lockup_detector_pending_init __initdata;
> 
> struct wait_queue_head lockup_detector_wait __initdata =
> 		__WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INITIALIZER(lockup_detector_wait);
> 
> static struct work_struct detector_work __initdata =
> 		__WORK_INITIALIZER(lockup_detector_work,
> 				   lockup_detector_delay_init);
> 
> static void __init lockup_detector_delay_init(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> 	int ret;
> 
> 	wait_event(lockup_detector_wait, lockup_detector_pending_init == false);
> 
> 	ret = watchdog_nmi_probe();
> 	if (ret) {
> 		pr_info("Delayed init of the lockup detector failed: %\n);
> 		pr_info("Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled\n");
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
> 	nmi_watchdog_available = true;
> 	lockup_detector_setup();
> }
> 
> /* Trigger delayedEnsure the check is called after the initialization of PMU driver */
> static int __init lockup_detector_check(void)
> {
> 	if (!lockup_detector_pending_init)
> 		return;
> 
> 	lockup_detector_pending_init = false;
> 	wake_up(&lockup_detector_wait);
> 	return 0;
> }
> late_initcall_sync(lockup_detector_check);
> 
> void __init lockup_detector_init(void)
> {
> 	int ret;
> 
> 	if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
> 		pr_info("Disabling watchdog on nohz_full cores by default\n");
> 
> 	cpumask_copy(&watchdog_cpumask,
> 		     housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_TIMER));
> 
> 	ret = watchdog_nmi_probe();
> 	if (!ret)
> 		nmi_watchdog_available = true;
> 	else if (ret == -EBUSY) {
> 		detector_delay_pending_init = true;
> 		/* Init must be done in a process context on a bound CPU. */
> 		queue_work_on(smp_processor_id(), system_wq, 
> 				  &lockup_detector_work);
> 	}
> 
> 	lockup_detector_setup();
> 	watchdog_sysctl_init();
> }
> 
> The result is that lockup_detector_work() will never stay blocked
> forever. There are two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  lockup_detector_work() called before lockup_detector_check().
>     In this case, wait_event() will wait until lockup_detector_check()
>     clears detector_delay_pending_init and calls wake_up().
> 
> 2. lockup_detector_check() called before lockup_detector_work().
>    In this case, wait_even() will immediately continue because
>    it will see cleared detector_delay_pending_init.
> 

Thanks, I think this logic is much simpler than three states for our use case now,
It also fits the call flow described above, I will revise it base on this
code.


Thanks a lot for your code and review!

BRs,
Lecopzer

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com>
To: <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: <acme@kernel.org>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	<alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	<davem@davemloft.net>, <jolsa@redhat.com>, <jthierry@redhat.com>,
	<keescook@chromium.org>, <kernelfans@gmail.com>,
	<lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	<masahiroy@kernel.org>, <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	<maz@kernel.org>, <mcgrof@kernel.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
	<namhyung@kernel.org>, <nixiaoming@huawei.com>,
	<peterz@infradead.org>, <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	<sumit.garg@linaro.org>, <wangqing@vivo.com>, <will@kernel.org>,
	<yj.chiang@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kernel/watchdog: Adapt the watchdog_hld interface for async model
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 00:32:57 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220228163257.2411-1-lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YhygkafOHc6eeP9f@alley>

Yes, there is no race now, the condition is much like a verbose checking for
the state. I'll remove it.


> > I think it make sense to remove WARN now becasue it looks verbosely...
> > However, I would rather change the following printk to
> > "Delayed init for lockup detector failed."
> 
> I would print both messages. The above message says what failed.
> 
> 
> > > > +		pr_info("Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled\n");
> 
> And this message explains what is the result of the above failure.
> It is not obvious.

Yes, make sense, let's print both.


> 
> > > > +	}
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/* Ensure the check is called after the initialization of PMU driver */
> > > > +static int __init lockup_detector_check(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	if (detector_delay_init_state < DELAY_INIT_WAIT)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (WARN_ON(detector_delay_init_state == DELAY_INIT_WAIT)) {
> > > 
> > > Again. Is WARN_ON() needed?
> > > 
> > > Also the condition looks wrong. IMHO, this is the expected state.
> > > 
> > 
> > This does expected DELAY_INIT_READY here, which means,
> > every one who comes here to be checked should be READY and WARN if you're
> > still in WAIT state, and which means the previous lockup_detector_delay_init()
> > failed.
> 
> No, DELAY_INIT_READY is set below. DELAY_INIT_WAIT is valid value here.
> It means that lockup_detector_delay_init() work is queued.
> 

Sorry, I didn't describe clearly,

For the call flow:

kernel_init_freeable()
-> lockup_detector_init()
--> queue work(lockup_detector_delay_init) with state registering
    to DELAY_INIT_WAIT.
---> lockup_detector_delay_init wait DELAY_INIT_READY that set
     by armv8_pmu_driver_init().
----> device_initcall(armv8_pmu_driver_init),
      set state to READY and wake_up the work. (in 5th patch)
-----> lockup_detector_delay_init recieves READY and calls
       watchdog_nmi_probe() again.
------> late_initcall_sync(lockup_detector_check);
        check if the state is READY? In other words, did the arch driver
        finish probing watchdog between "queue work" and "late_initcall_sync()"?
        If not, we forcely set state to READY and wake_up again.


> 
> > IMO, either keeping or removing WARN is fine with me.
> > 
> > I think I'll remove WARN and add
> > pr_info("Delayed init checking for lockup detector failed, retry for once.");
> > inside the `if (detector_delay_init_state == DELAY_INIT_WAIT)`
> > 
> > Or would you have any other suggestion? thanks.
> > 
> > > > +		detector_delay_init_state = DELAY_INIT_READY;
> > > > +		wake_up(&hld_detector_wait);
> 
> I see another problem now. We should always call the wake up here
> when the work was queued. Otherwise, the worker will stay blocked
> forewer.
> 
> The worker will also get blocked when the late_initcall is called
> before the work is proceed by a worker.

lockup_detector_check() is used to solve the blocking state.
As the description above, if state is WAIT when lockup_detector_check(),
we would forcely set state to READY can wake up the work for once.
After lockup_detector_check(), nobody cares about the state and the worker
also finishes its work.

> 
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	flush_work(&detector_work);
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +late_initcall_sync(lockup_detector_check);
> 
> 
> OK, I think that the three states are too complicated. I suggest to
> use only a single bool. Something like:
> 
> static bool lockup_detector_pending_init __initdata;
> 
> struct wait_queue_head lockup_detector_wait __initdata =
> 		__WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INITIALIZER(lockup_detector_wait);
> 
> static struct work_struct detector_work __initdata =
> 		__WORK_INITIALIZER(lockup_detector_work,
> 				   lockup_detector_delay_init);
> 
> static void __init lockup_detector_delay_init(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> 	int ret;
> 
> 	wait_event(lockup_detector_wait, lockup_detector_pending_init == false);
> 
> 	ret = watchdog_nmi_probe();
> 	if (ret) {
> 		pr_info("Delayed init of the lockup detector failed: %\n);
> 		pr_info("Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled\n");
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
> 	nmi_watchdog_available = true;
> 	lockup_detector_setup();
> }
> 
> /* Trigger delayedEnsure the check is called after the initialization of PMU driver */
> static int __init lockup_detector_check(void)
> {
> 	if (!lockup_detector_pending_init)
> 		return;
> 
> 	lockup_detector_pending_init = false;
> 	wake_up(&lockup_detector_wait);
> 	return 0;
> }
> late_initcall_sync(lockup_detector_check);
> 
> void __init lockup_detector_init(void)
> {
> 	int ret;
> 
> 	if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
> 		pr_info("Disabling watchdog on nohz_full cores by default\n");
> 
> 	cpumask_copy(&watchdog_cpumask,
> 		     housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_TIMER));
> 
> 	ret = watchdog_nmi_probe();
> 	if (!ret)
> 		nmi_watchdog_available = true;
> 	else if (ret == -EBUSY) {
> 		detector_delay_pending_init = true;
> 		/* Init must be done in a process context on a bound CPU. */
> 		queue_work_on(smp_processor_id(), system_wq, 
> 				  &lockup_detector_work);
> 	}
> 
> 	lockup_detector_setup();
> 	watchdog_sysctl_init();
> }
> 
> The result is that lockup_detector_work() will never stay blocked
> forever. There are two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  lockup_detector_work() called before lockup_detector_check().
>     In this case, wait_event() will wait until lockup_detector_check()
>     clears detector_delay_pending_init and calls wake_up().
> 
> 2. lockup_detector_check() called before lockup_detector_work().
>    In this case, wait_even() will immediately continue because
>    it will see cleared detector_delay_pending_init.
> 

Thanks, I think this logic is much simpler than three states for our use case now,
It also fits the call flow described above, I will revise it base on this
code.


Thanks a lot for your code and review!

BRs,
Lecopzer

_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com>
To: <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: <acme@kernel.org>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	<alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	<davem@davemloft.net>, <jolsa@redhat.com>, <jthierry@redhat.com>,
	<keescook@chromium.org>, <kernelfans@gmail.com>,
	<lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	<masahiroy@kernel.org>, <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	<maz@kernel.org>, <mcgrof@kernel.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
	<namhyung@kernel.org>, <nixiaoming@huawei.com>,
	<peterz@infradead.org>, <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	<sumit.garg@linaro.org>, <wangqing@vivo.com>, <will@kernel.org>,
	<yj.chiang@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kernel/watchdog: Adapt the watchdog_hld interface for async model
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 00:32:57 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220228163257.2411-1-lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YhygkafOHc6eeP9f@alley>

Yes, there is no race now, the condition is much like a verbose checking for
the state. I'll remove it.


> > I think it make sense to remove WARN now becasue it looks verbosely...
> > However, I would rather change the following printk to
> > "Delayed init for lockup detector failed."
> 
> I would print both messages. The above message says what failed.
> 
> 
> > > > +		pr_info("Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled\n");
> 
> And this message explains what is the result of the above failure.
> It is not obvious.

Yes, make sense, let's print both.


> 
> > > > +	}
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/* Ensure the check is called after the initialization of PMU driver */
> > > > +static int __init lockup_detector_check(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	if (detector_delay_init_state < DELAY_INIT_WAIT)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (WARN_ON(detector_delay_init_state == DELAY_INIT_WAIT)) {
> > > 
> > > Again. Is WARN_ON() needed?
> > > 
> > > Also the condition looks wrong. IMHO, this is the expected state.
> > > 
> > 
> > This does expected DELAY_INIT_READY here, which means,
> > every one who comes here to be checked should be READY and WARN if you're
> > still in WAIT state, and which means the previous lockup_detector_delay_init()
> > failed.
> 
> No, DELAY_INIT_READY is set below. DELAY_INIT_WAIT is valid value here.
> It means that lockup_detector_delay_init() work is queued.
> 

Sorry, I didn't describe clearly,

For the call flow:

kernel_init_freeable()
-> lockup_detector_init()
--> queue work(lockup_detector_delay_init) with state registering
    to DELAY_INIT_WAIT.
---> lockup_detector_delay_init wait DELAY_INIT_READY that set
     by armv8_pmu_driver_init().
----> device_initcall(armv8_pmu_driver_init),
      set state to READY and wake_up the work. (in 5th patch)
-----> lockup_detector_delay_init recieves READY and calls
       watchdog_nmi_probe() again.
------> late_initcall_sync(lockup_detector_check);
        check if the state is READY? In other words, did the arch driver
        finish probing watchdog between "queue work" and "late_initcall_sync()"?
        If not, we forcely set state to READY and wake_up again.


> 
> > IMO, either keeping or removing WARN is fine with me.
> > 
> > I think I'll remove WARN and add
> > pr_info("Delayed init checking for lockup detector failed, retry for once.");
> > inside the `if (detector_delay_init_state == DELAY_INIT_WAIT)`
> > 
> > Or would you have any other suggestion? thanks.
> > 
> > > > +		detector_delay_init_state = DELAY_INIT_READY;
> > > > +		wake_up(&hld_detector_wait);
> 
> I see another problem now. We should always call the wake up here
> when the work was queued. Otherwise, the worker will stay blocked
> forewer.
> 
> The worker will also get blocked when the late_initcall is called
> before the work is proceed by a worker.

lockup_detector_check() is used to solve the blocking state.
As the description above, if state is WAIT when lockup_detector_check(),
we would forcely set state to READY can wake up the work for once.
After lockup_detector_check(), nobody cares about the state and the worker
also finishes its work.

> 
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	flush_work(&detector_work);
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +late_initcall_sync(lockup_detector_check);
> 
> 
> OK, I think that the three states are too complicated. I suggest to
> use only a single bool. Something like:
> 
> static bool lockup_detector_pending_init __initdata;
> 
> struct wait_queue_head lockup_detector_wait __initdata =
> 		__WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INITIALIZER(lockup_detector_wait);
> 
> static struct work_struct detector_work __initdata =
> 		__WORK_INITIALIZER(lockup_detector_work,
> 				   lockup_detector_delay_init);
> 
> static void __init lockup_detector_delay_init(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> 	int ret;
> 
> 	wait_event(lockup_detector_wait, lockup_detector_pending_init == false);
> 
> 	ret = watchdog_nmi_probe();
> 	if (ret) {
> 		pr_info("Delayed init of the lockup detector failed: %\n);
> 		pr_info("Perf NMI watchdog permanently disabled\n");
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
> 	nmi_watchdog_available = true;
> 	lockup_detector_setup();
> }
> 
> /* Trigger delayedEnsure the check is called after the initialization of PMU driver */
> static int __init lockup_detector_check(void)
> {
> 	if (!lockup_detector_pending_init)
> 		return;
> 
> 	lockup_detector_pending_init = false;
> 	wake_up(&lockup_detector_wait);
> 	return 0;
> }
> late_initcall_sync(lockup_detector_check);
> 
> void __init lockup_detector_init(void)
> {
> 	int ret;
> 
> 	if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
> 		pr_info("Disabling watchdog on nohz_full cores by default\n");
> 
> 	cpumask_copy(&watchdog_cpumask,
> 		     housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_TIMER));
> 
> 	ret = watchdog_nmi_probe();
> 	if (!ret)
> 		nmi_watchdog_available = true;
> 	else if (ret == -EBUSY) {
> 		detector_delay_pending_init = true;
> 		/* Init must be done in a process context on a bound CPU. */
> 		queue_work_on(smp_processor_id(), system_wq, 
> 				  &lockup_detector_work);
> 	}
> 
> 	lockup_detector_setup();
> 	watchdog_sysctl_init();
> }
> 
> The result is that lockup_detector_work() will never stay blocked
> forever. There are two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  lockup_detector_work() called before lockup_detector_check().
>     In this case, wait_event() will wait until lockup_detector_check()
>     clears detector_delay_pending_init and calls wake_up().
> 
> 2. lockup_detector_check() called before lockup_detector_work().
>    In this case, wait_even() will immediately continue because
>    it will see cleared detector_delay_pending_init.
> 

Thanks, I think this logic is much simpler than three states for our use case now,
It also fits the call flow described above, I will revise it base on this
code.


Thanks a lot for your code and review!

BRs,
Lecopzer

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-28 16:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-12 10:43 [PATCH 0/5] Support hld based on Pseudo-NMI for arm64 Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43 ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43 ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43 ` [PATCH 1/5] kernel/watchdog: remove WATCHDOG_DEFAULT Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43   ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43   ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-25 12:47   ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-25 12:47     ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-25 12:47     ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-26  9:52     ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-26  9:52       ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-26  9:52       ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43 ` [PATCH 2/5] kernel/watchdog: change watchdog_nmi_enable() to void Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43   ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43   ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-25 12:50   ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-25 12:50     ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-25 12:50     ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-26  9:54     ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-26  9:54       ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-26  9:54       ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43 ` [PATCH 3/5] kernel/watchdog_hld: Ensure CPU-bound context when creating hardlockup detector event Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43   ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43   ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-25 13:15   ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-25 13:15     ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-25 13:15     ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-12 10:43 ` [PATCH 4/5] kernel/watchdog: Adapt the watchdog_hld interface for async model Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43   ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43   ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-25 15:20   ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-25 15:20     ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-25 15:20     ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-26 10:52     ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-26 10:52       ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-26 10:52       ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-28 10:14       ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-28 10:14         ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-28 10:14         ` Petr Mladek
2022-02-28 16:32         ` Lecopzer Chen [this message]
2022-02-28 16:32           ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-28 16:32           ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43 ` [PATCH 5/5] arm64: Enable perf events based hard lockup detector Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43   ` Lecopzer Chen
2022-02-12 10:43   ` Lecopzer Chen

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=20220228163257.2411-1-lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com \
    --to=lecopzer.chen@mediatek.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernelfans@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
    --cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=nixiaoming@huawei.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.com \
    --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sumit.garg@linaro.org \
    --cc=wangqing@vivo.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yj.chiang@mediatek.com \
    /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.