From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC4CC282C4 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8301222C7 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:15:40 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C8301222C7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=rjwysocki.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 66B9E8E0002; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:15:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 61A6A8E0001; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:15:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5318C8E0002; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:15:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-lf1-f70.google.com (mail-lf1-f70.google.com [209.85.167.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D818F8E0001 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:15:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lf1-f70.google.com with SMTP id t198so37042lff.9 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:15:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=M+b8SOJU1+cl5JPt766rHl72qOEi8rJKWmCs5irLPJ8=; b=I/lPP1S2MxyYAgCkF0EdmjjAarFv5/E6PxHLCp56HXj1QqoUzPr3iCnEa4aRSzsSIr VSXaA25v5UMF5+8C/QcaDf39LG7iX6a/x0GIubtE9eCWVINVZoQu6H5W9cCDO1Re8YPB d3p1KenRkrN0SNIyVknHUJrnEJswdnv7zqCvSGaJBMmXCmzBLB1pGOCdcpWqWeFP9GUG x03dM1k7oyqw4PVLzEbRyShYlr04uAK8wfwCnB2l46IbqZMhIDQNlI2PhZ+ayudgSOAo Qg9ONhNXii8QsCqiYIFWO9ziY3zURwzW5Uf+GWK/OzXR1rDBDDAOu0rx2lThf9gECzn1 JTOg== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rjw@rjwysocki.net designates 79.96.170.134 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rjw@rjwysocki.net X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAublrJpgr7OqiexHQORaSkvcidey6J0IIMzpacv+lTXbMilUCzEG ZT0Drzd5sznQVCNfVgsGUSWODogml9LPaj018WTpeINxNGtB865YxNOHcmTc4WnCxnLSQk5Z/3s GEGgy9ULqUnryNF57sQlnoo/jBAKMoOnfR3Arrgh6GMhfYAnsDDMy7bWyjGHHYEEpnA== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:54b4:: with SMTP id w20mr3997787lfk.24.1550009739288; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:15:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ib+wqJiNrEXI722NkheasO4M2sJZj6KATTuepdKOMaGHvmIPwsj/ORQZmV1Y64NxPt2hnmi X-Received: by 2002:ac2:54b4:: with SMTP id w20mr3997718lfk.24.1550009737548; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:15:37 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1550009737; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=0aXlN0Oca5RzSjT00bGJ2w0B8ZVDRMtK+DwKVGGbyZiyre8ZGWbiVSZW3+YNm7G/C8 0iRVnL+HNmt4vyG8LupnNCAC55DWhgi+6pP1wdN2mTLgmH59q2/qeHhbUGcKFGG0HTjN S/esFSOqoaIcZ/dMX93Vejugxp6QwLVXo+XvLhAHmj+qz2ApcAvuTND+YrJyBSbuF0b1 LXPAVtIJdHT7ulilYBplGOKwmFJNaQyoXjV/SC73hr0SGtKdTPJKgXGQirGDR26pywOE N0IHq+XmzFHIJ4GYgyeGBg6LKcYYQFE0tmzAqY0Mxo8RnVBAtuJaNdO0AKKT9JWx3cFh i3Jg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from; bh=M+b8SOJU1+cl5JPt766rHl72qOEi8rJKWmCs5irLPJ8=; b=lW0bsw307dt7bfvp5Jm1zomgrsFz9P6V0AXEsG6SksQLkhRx7htyRZU1VoUR6UrZjY tpQwOUt3bAbOZjCVUIRuj5fUrOV+JqFYrKQeNISv+rZHvUj8qnH5sAKCn1FPdqSOJmZK hTLAtplrLZWAVZKhXB4SFpUvhGM7shQrbI1+ESRUIbCyKO4YU6Ixawq4H6/Ys00JvMX+ NoXKn5g8qqrb2CalSZpmFZjyEuNIW7ehUuHCABIOB49t8xRShPOgKTO4yUQK4loE6TEt TcLx4811t1sNAiJD6TA/+8WHtc3JbYQSIToZiIGNda2wb/hz0xH2F9J0VcopuUn7pHZR vaEg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rjw@rjwysocki.net designates 79.96.170.134 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rjw@rjwysocki.net Received: from cloudserver094114.home.pl (cloudserver094114.home.pl. [79.96.170.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q26-v6si14336132lji.163.2019.02.12.14.15.37 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rjw@rjwysocki.net designates 79.96.170.134 as permitted sender) client-ip=79.96.170.134; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rjw@rjwysocki.net designates 79.96.170.134 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rjw@rjwysocki.net Received: from 79.184.254.36.ipv4.supernova.orange.pl (79.184.254.36) (HELO aspire.rjw.lan) by serwer1319399.home.pl (79.96.170.134) with SMTP (IdeaSmtpServer 0.83.183) id 1561d8aff315dca9; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:15:36 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: James Morse Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Borislav Petkov , ACPI Devel Maling List , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Linux ARM , Linux Memory Management List , Marc Zyngier , Christoffer Dall , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Naoya Horiguchi , Len Brown , Tony Luck , Dongjiu Geng , Xie XiuQi Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/26] APEI in_nmi() rework and SDEI wire-up Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:14:18 +0100 Message-ID: <2507221.Jg8xd6amJ7@aspire.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20190129184902.102850-1-james.morse@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Monday, February 11, 2019 7:35:03 PM CET James Morse wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On 11/02/2019 11:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:13 PM James Morse wrote: > >> On 08/02/2019 11:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 7:48:36 PM CET James Morse wrote: > >>>> This series aims to wire-up arm64's fancy new software-NMI notifications > >>>> for firmware-first RAS. These need to use the estatus-queue, which is > >>>> also needed for notifications via emulated-SError. All of these > >>>> things take the 'in_nmi()' path through ghes_copy_tofrom_phys(), and > >>>> so will deadlock if they can interact, which they might. > >> > >>>> Known issues: > >>>> * ghes_copy_tofrom_phys() already takes a lock in NMI context, this > >>>> series moves that around, and makes sure we never try to take the > >>>> same lock from different NMIlike notifications. Since the switch to > >>>> queued spinlocks it looks like the kernel can only be 4 context's > >>>> deep in spinlock, which arm64 could exceed as it doesn't have a > >>>> single architected NMI. This would be fixed by dropping back to > >>>> test-and-set when the nesting gets too deep: > >>>> lore.kernel.org/r/1548215351-18896-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com > >>>> > >>>> * Taking an NMI from a KVM guest on arm64 with VHE leaves HCR_EL2.TGE > >>>> clear, meaning AT and TLBI point at the guest, and PAN/UAO are squiffy. > >>>> Only TLBI matters for APEI, and this is fixed by Julien's patch: > >>>> http://lore.kernel.org/r/1548084825-8803-2-git-send-email-julien.thierry@arm.com > >>>> > >>>> * Linux ignores the physical address mask, meaning it doesn't call > >>>> memory_failure() on all the affected pages if firmware or hypervisor > >>>> believe in a different page size. Easy to hit on arm64, (easy to fix too, > >>>> it just conflicts with this series) > >> > >> > >>>> James Morse (26): > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Don't wait to serialise with oops messages when > >>>> panic()ing > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Remove silent flag from ghes_read_estatus() > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Switch estatus pool to use vmalloc memory > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Make hest.c manage the estatus memory pool > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Make estatus pool allocation a static size > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Don't store CPER records physical address in struct ghes > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Remove spurious GHES_TO_CLEAR check > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Don't update struct ghes' flags in read/clear estatus > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Generalise the estatus queue's notify code > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Don't allow ghes_ack_error() to mask earlier errors > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Move NOTIFY_SEA between the estatus-queue and NOTIFY_NMI > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Switch NOTIFY_SEA to use the estatus queue > >>>> KVM: arm/arm64: Add kvm_ras.h to collect kvm specific RAS plumbing > >>>> arm64: KVM/mm: Move SEA handling behind a single 'claim' interface > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Move locking to the notification helper > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Let the notification helper specify the fixmap slot > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Pass ghes and estatus separately to avoid a later copy > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Make GHES estatus header validation more user friendly > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Split ghes_read_estatus() to allow a peek at the CPER > >>>> length > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Only use queued estatus entry during > >>>> in_nmi_queue_one_entry() > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Use separate fixmap pages for arm64 NMI-like > >>>> notifications > >>>> mm/memory-failure: Add memory_failure_queue_kick() > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Kick the memory_failure() queue for synchronous errors > >>>> arm64: acpi: Make apei_claim_sea() synchronise with APEI's irq work > >>>> firmware: arm_sdei: Add ACPI GHES registration helper > >>>> ACPI / APEI: Add support for the SDEI GHES Notification type > >> > >> > >>> I can apply patches in this series up to and including patch [21/26]. > >>> > >>> Do you want me to do that? > >> > >> 9-12, 17-19, 21 are missing any review/ack tags, so I wouldn't ask, but as > >> you're offering, yes please! > >> > >> > >>> Patch [22/26] requires an ACK from mm people. > >>> > >>> Patch [23/26] has a problem that randconfig can generate a configuration > >>> in which memory_failure_queue_kick() is not present, so it is necessary > >>> to add a CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE dependency somewhere for things to > >>> work (or define an empty stub for that function in case the symbol is > >>> not set). > >> > >> Damn-it! Thanks, I was just trying to work that report out... > >> > >> > >>> If patches [24-26/26] don't depend on the previous two, I can try to > >>> apply them either, so please let me know. > >> > >> 22-24 depend on each other. Merging 24 without the other two is no-improvement, > >> so I'd like them to be kept together. > >> > >> 25-26 don't depend on 22-24, but came later so that they weren't affected by the > >> same race. > >> (note to self: describe that in the cover letter next time.) > >> > >> > >> If I apply the tag's and Boris' changes and post a tested v9 as 1-21, 25-26, is > >> that easier, or does it cause extra work? > > > > Actually, I went ahead and applied them, since I had the 1-21 ready anyway. > > > I applied the Boris' fixups manually which led to a bit of rebasing, > > so please check my linux-next branch. > > Looks okay to me, and I ran your branch through the POLL/SEA/SDEI tests I've > been doing for each version so far. Thanks for the confirmation!