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;
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:24:40 +0200
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 5.11-rc5
Message-ID: <20210126162440.GC196782@linux.ibm.com>
References: <CAHk-=wgmJ0q1URHrOb-2iCOdZ8gYybiH6LY2Gq7cosXu6kxAnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <161160687463.28991.354987542182281928@build.alporthouse.com>
 <CAHk-=wh23BXwBwBgPmt9h2EJztnzKKf=qr5r=B0Hr6BGgZ-QDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210125213348.GB196782@linux.ibm.com>
 <161161117911.29150.13853544418926100149@build.alporthouse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <161161117911.29150.13853544418926100149@build.alporthouse.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:46:19PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Mike Rapoport (2021-01-25 21:33:48)
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:49:39PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:35 PM Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Linus Torvalds (2021-01-25 01:06:40)
> > > > > Mike Rapoport (3):
> > > > ...
> > > > >       mm: fix initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout
> > > >
> > > > We have half a dozen or so different machines in CI that are silently
> > > > failing to boot, that we believe is bisected to this patch.
> > > 
> > > That commit reverts cleanly - so if you can verify that reverting it
> > > fixes your CI machines, I think that that's the right thing to do for
> > > now, unless Mike can figure out some obvious "Duh!" moment from your
> > > working dmesg.
> > 
> > Unfortunately not, at least at 11pm :(
> > Maybe tomorrow I'll have something smarter to say.
> 
> CI does confirm that the revert of d3921cb8be29 brings the machines back
> to life.

I still cannot see what could possibly go wrong, so let's revert
d3921cb8be29 for now and I'll continue to work with Chris to debug this.
   
> > > Mike: should we perhaps revert the first patch too (commit
> > > bde9cfa3afe4: "x86/setup: don't remove E820_TYPE_RAM for pfn 0")?

This change should be quite innocuous, we anyway never allocate pfn 0 but
treat 0 as memory start in many places.

> > I wonder, maybe actually this one is causing troubles?
> > 
> > Chris, would it be possible to check what happens if you revert only
> > bde9cfa3afe4?
> 
> Queued for CI, will be run in about an hour.
> -Chris

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.