Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:2785:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id ia5csp3042413pxb; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 05:05:37 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxkgkE8gGls889kTliFwKMm+14+6LdYIEEg48+6vcNotDuqtBY5XhSwYZqPjNfetl+4ANVL X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3fc1:: with SMTP id k1mr3335493ejj.58.1610456737550; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 05:05:37 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1610456737; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Xo6ZFy9zCQhicZefZsKnxClmZJLq2JXJy7H4uI7LKE7DAHm+O9BGLu1XGFrVGgjULv zR3E+p2rKnW62LnqSCTXmFwdnYsq4B31DhHTrMc8Hrwz0S3qaJJ/df/7xxhcQS9DR1Hs xZetN9JUC4mYG8gBghp2tAK5xZOazHkx3lmDO8rfL7rf0mfAz7O8wUJgiLdpmtKssmOP 1N9QWnlmZWtSz+N9EUe5Qi5yQU8RI/QS9PNuYu/Fs5Z+ZEhGOSIm71ADcLK5fkC5qc5Z pLLg3fY/LcdS8xWSe9zZFLm9n9P1n+y2O3LJ1L5JdzxptdTghzkVoScsB/1TWiFc6D4f swhQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=yGvhckPIWq+OZTr20FBQMwOJaKxv0ZA018v9tYETN88=; b=Tq1rS7GOt3VGwkNUxtmxt6aFAVWlqCT/0fcsDXzeQf0EDNZwj1A+jgO9+X2CxDX2fj d9gydQ5KMDOyP+9xhuotu6XbLA4dCoAhGcsW5Wm32ZztfdNUomZN16BhkbX7zLrsAivT WYiwAsuocxYfQG/tKkawoRylHWPbLuphUxPwykF3yO/Y9tFK0vsD6Ifo3SomuiiL+oYq C8ZsEw1nTh4DlRNwNhqS8nlVSEw2UYeaYqcHHZA5kS9un5bpwOGc5FfuBBy2HbM8wv98 Rd1MvBdWQN9ZhdJ3TUxiaglFH9mfGjWh58rrnmizlXyFCmjFiyHu2MNOvRDfOTvC+l5u 75Kw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=mWSNdL97; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v13si1292117edr.464.2021.01.12.05.05.11; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 05:05:37 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=mWSNdL97; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732225AbhALMH7 (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:07:59 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:31732 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732218AbhALMH6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:07:58 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 10CC2Ja3107344; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:07:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=yGvhckPIWq+OZTr20FBQMwOJaKxv0ZA018v9tYETN88=; b=mWSNdL97iTs3HxMGTNZMJ/ivRTdbZSPXfE/BWvqC12nf6M583aSzkt0IScKuI9NtGgb6 VikgeKfq54kv1nwq2DZBWRR1/PWnqY9vkn4QNIm4BR7CNyARTm8yd57oHIlqAqO9RmDI 7NuQ5GJZPtBKpjZX5MixeRTATzlBBkuLvIbhlI5M02yJU6Sk5qXRqQSabzbsUYHDHEs+ OSV/wfF0bGp4WANNSyfQS6DvRqUwok7/1lz3V2RK6HS0GxjVVjj7s7IgE4ZwzdmSQCy0 57IRDf5sRZSxnytxg/99bgs2MIuJyWKat3lIsvqnjCKUWOUncPCKgWoClLovqMJ41W7e Iw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 361b05gvxj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:07:06 -0500 Received: from m0098393.ppops.net (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 10CC4icw119535; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:07:05 -0500 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 361b05gvvw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:07:05 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 10CBwUsx009096; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:07:03 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 35y448bkkx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:07:02 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 10CC70Ct32375242 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:07:00 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4471A4054; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:07:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF51EA405C; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:06:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.176.60]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:06:58 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:06:56 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport To: Guillaume Tucker Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , kernelci-results-staging@groups.io, "kernelci-results@groups.io" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport , Baoquan He Subject: Re: kernelci/staging-next bisection: sleep.login on rk3288-rock2-square #2286-staging Message-ID: <20210112120656.GJ832698@linux.ibm.com> References: <5fd3e5d9.1c69fb81.f9e69.5028@mx.google.com> <127999c4-7d56-0c36-7f88-8e1a5c934cae@collabora.com> <20201213082314.GA198221@linux.ibm.com> <0633d44a-3796-8a1b-e5dc-99fc62aa4dc7@collabora.com> <20210103134753.GC832698@linux.ibm.com> <20210105091330.GD832698@linux.ibm.com> <28e59120-f8b9-7256-325a-1e4ca90887b5@collabora.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <28e59120-f8b9-7256-325a-1e4ca90887b5@collabora.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343,18.0.737 definitions=2021-01-12_06:2021-01-12,2021-01-12 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101120065 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:53:45AM +0000, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > On 05/01/2021 09:13, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 03:09:14PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > >> Hello Mike, > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 03:47:53PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > >>> Thanks for the logs, it seems that implicitly adding reserved regions to > >>> memblock.memory wasn't that bright idea :) > >> > >> Would it be possible to somehow clean up the hack then? > >> > >> The only difference between the clean solution and the hack is that > >> the hack intended to achieved the exact same, but without adding the > >> reserved regions to memblock.memory. > > > > I didn't consider adding reserved regions to memblock.memory as a clean > > solution, this was still a hack, but I didn't think that things are that > > fragile. > > > > I still think we cannot rely on memblock.reserved to detect > > memory/zone/node sizes and the boot failure reported here confirms this. > > > >> The comment on that problematic area says the reserved area cannot be > >> used for DMA because of some unexplained hw issue, and that doing so > >> prevents booting, but since the area got reserved, even with the clean > >> solution, it shouldn't have never been used for DMA? > >> > >> So I can only imagine that the physical memory region is way more > >> problematic than just for DMA. It sounds like that anything that > >> touches it, including the CPU, will hang the system, not just DMA. It > >> sounds somewhat similar to the other e820 direct mapping issue on x86? > > > > My understanding is that the boot failed because when I implicitly added > > the reserved region to memblock.memory the memory size seen by > > free_area_init() jumped from 2G to 4G because the reserved area was close > > to 4G. The very first allocation would get a chunk from slightly below of > > 4G and as there is no real memory there, the kernel would crash. > > > >> If you want to test the hack on the arm board to check if it boots you > >> can use the below commit: > >> > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git/commit/?id=c3ea2633015104ce0df33dcddbc36f57de1392bc > > > > My take is your solution would boot with this memory configuration, but I > > still don't think that using memblock.reserved for zone/node sizing is > > correct. > > The rk3288 platform has now been failing to boot for nearly a > month on linux-next: > > https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/5ffbed0a31ad81239bc94cdb/ > > Until a fix or a new version of this patch is made, would it be > possible to drop it or revert it so the platform become usable > again? There is a new version of these patches: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210111194017.22696-1-rppt@kernel.org It's going to be in linux-next as soon as Andrew pushes mmotm. > Or if you want, I can make a cleaned-up version of my hack to > ignore the problematic region if you still need your patch to be > on linux-next, but that would probably be less than ideal. > > Thanks, > Guillaume -- Sincerely yours, Mike.