Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1287:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp4432337pxv; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 07:15:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJywYOcAqz1+ChfbmzF+5m9/b1H9VBcWSPyc3dzIlS7jbg8zABQctvWba9w22YoGCdWr98qA X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:38c8:: with SMTP id r8mr22043924ejd.172.1627395324834; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 07:15:24 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1627395324; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=E87u2TI0640TLg7LKgL5s0ABOYUh4v1wDs8jnGC0TQMW4AKmJ66ActFq9f4wZm2b0u joVMM5DtT+A0pBEvANAdNzUVLg9r0rq+sVFCW5FJK4SvYOAH0HbrxWjgdt1ogSg5WtnP zCti9izT7zGA3wXdrvIsPZSB3wHOXKy+xhwbfh5e0FYfHcIRuw94jiizwAcTnBSYNOPO FIZlNimwcekAFUdHti4O3ULRacJGJk4zr/hlicG0kRl7AKro8S0UxBDuKkOeSq7eIH8t OPUNlxRLKeaenkOKtlOouM19LbVPYMANIcsWwHWSr/qOvFJBkBC1LkZYsFrRLclBM6+Q Fe5g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=PCIvxt012zZrKawWncDVulQUNMSy0P3fxqe99oFzfpg=; b=mUPZdpdkjZd12UAye88mDOll9kOiqfOau/9N6A8O6ZuiLbYeHrulU48/ooXzgtACdO 0Ww5XI/vaj/K+1EaFhW/Wy9dZ2ahjNR+M5QYj8FJw5JcadIzxuGvKQtWFLwDVX6FUX/R kTMUUJ2rfT3TXk9MLCWoixV771r4LMakwt/SjLZgK7I+9pyZhS1XELM41D04DHNDBLHC N4vVmoFFTcpapliI+GxX4T1KRQLd8TlCf2g9/3nf1FCQ9vNTy1tQwcyGMxdL32HaDFfI r3HpryxySe9bIVghw//yamexr4wVTQO0LI1g1btzqBRYaUOP6ZyIXgAnIrNxLfygqnUi sBNg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Phy6PbqD; 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=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h20si2717975ejt.70.2021.07.27.07.15.00; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 07:15:24 -0700 (PDT) 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=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Phy6PbqD; 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=redhat.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236847AbhG0ONJ (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:13:09 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:29272 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236860AbhG0ONI (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:13:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1627395187; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PCIvxt012zZrKawWncDVulQUNMSy0P3fxqe99oFzfpg=; b=Phy6PbqD1ZG7gPKZJMWm1qiG1967joga1dnHuDjRsCc0wp/BfgOxuh/WCIOSTtrHeNdRW6 WjFQaAL9DnOLu0/Sj/EnbQa4cqSrQgPIdO0NWQXOIjlDgaP7BxtJRia4iB7X86bD9eJdep fznTK9zAdMpp/zDJHj/VcoHzne2p6uY= Received: from mail-oo1-f71.google.com (mail-oo1-f71.google.com [209.85.161.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-548-7J5tHVsfPqKvv4D9Ohqmcg-1; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:13:06 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 7J5tHVsfPqKvv4D9Ohqmcg-1 Received: by mail-oo1-f71.google.com with SMTP id s6-20020a4ab5460000b0290263980f2b45so8411279ooo.8 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 07:13:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PCIvxt012zZrKawWncDVulQUNMSy0P3fxqe99oFzfpg=; b=sXQqd/5TqezeEN4mOkTwvQwEoaogZSIc6mMRHWXVroa5gXU7Jruvlg9XVMTb6AxxJX gh/Rs27PYHrZH7LhvOlO+DJPReM5KjizM7aIpw4BL6VOmOfgA54HtVl8wxSG6C+P3UxY XFt/X4RjPgbZcWs34Kjr8v214QxKeOV7XZJtbV/yLeHJKl9QNuln9hjjWmbVzVss5CXJ 9S0ksnV7tq5l6O4EP6R3WUX0eGrksIKwB1cK6kDIKW+LuHJSLHKqCbGU6xJrQGGkTCYT 7/D89frQTLex7u1L70nwKIbJA1/YyUwQvLUxgXi1V4Q1ncCPplaqRRJxXFxIs8Q4Rc2N QARQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531hgvWMmHS+pz5b7M1TrDpwFXc1DzkPfQcz5APOBpS+mhRfanZc s2MzvSNipRa80pcleTNwOE28/WtJYM28rVU+9r8msOXKYv3rSgcSnfa3sSWV0QYeFIjgNh6+Mbx n6dDokL3/EYTZJaQ8dBFrORHBr6GRy3Xtr2bItaqk X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:40ae:: with SMTP id x46mr15350699ott.71.1627395185382; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 07:13:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:40ae:: with SMTP id x46mr15350676ott.71.1627395185128; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 07:13:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87sg04p315.fsf@oc8242746057.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: From: Bruno Goncalves Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:12:54 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] init/initramfs.c: do unpacking asynchronously To: Luis Chamberlain Cc: Rasmus Villemoes , Alexander Egorenkov , akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@alien8.de, corbet@lwn.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jeyu@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Dave Young Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 3:55 PM Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 09:31:54AM +0200, Bruno Goncalves wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 1:46 PM Rasmus Villemoes > > wrote: > > > > > > On 24/07/2021 09.46, Alexander Egorenkov wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > since e7cb072eb988 ("init/initramfs.c: do unpacking asynchronously"), we > > > > started seeing the following problem on s390 arch regularly: > > > > > > > > [ 5.039734] wait_for_initramfs() called before rootfs_initcalls > > So some context here, which might help. > > The initramfs_cookie is initialized until a a rootfs_initcall() is > called, in this case populate_rootfs(). The code is small, so might > as well include it: > > static int __init populate_rootfs(void) > { > initramfs_cookie = async_schedule_domain(do_populate_rootfs, NULL, > &initramfs_domain); > if (!initramfs_async) > wait_for_initramfs(); > return 0; > } > rootfs_initcall(populate_rootfs); > > The warning you see comes from a situation where a wait_for_initramfs() > gets called but we haven't yet initialized initramfs_cookie. There are > only a few calls for wait_for_initramfs() in the kernel, and the only > thing I can think of is that somehow s390 may rely on a usermode helper > early on, but not every time. > > What umh calls does s390 issue? > > > Unfortunately, we haven't been able to find the root cause, but since > > June 23rd we haven't hit this panic... > > > > Btw, this panic we were hitting only when testing kernels from "scsi" > > and "block" trees. > > Do you use drdb maybe? No, the machines we were able to reproduce the problem don't have drdb. Bruno > > Luis >