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=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 D5CC1C169C4 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:06:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4A520873 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:06:07 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6F4A520873 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BFD978E00D7; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BAD5C8E00C4; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:06:06 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A9C948E00D7; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:06:06 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-ot1-f69.google.com (mail-ot1-f69.google.com [209.85.210.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816038E00C4 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 06:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ot1-f69.google.com with SMTP id d5so10659470otl.21 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:06:06 -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:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zPI7PjhalKapOqadpYNDIzByO1yNXs4bj5jUAy0+XwM=; b=MESbi0eMS7tyswPfrkxLHL78CghFVAVtqn65iH8r+2p5THD7CTdSuXNbhQr6spLXjl StvG/cxKSL6/l94jJq7Tll5l7vTrgD0BWjH4X8cb6siBDqtQtOqDn9TmkItIaOz62bUs vFT1oZNyOQ6vV0suQ0v4qRPDvfHutxCZ7EbBQQ24ld+sXpGhBiGZ+CgVM5lA1fHN2enZ ct1siBVVWkfzO5pEHb/qkEeGWDeP0uayX9vY8QuOx4F0dbEjZrYy8tn1hpeaI4D5bKd7 WLL/BUH8px/tv2joveninLJkwjFIIZu9t0zreZdLP7mGW0REyFrV/tFj8sGyN7PgtH/u Gn0Q== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rjwysocki@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rjwysocki@gmail.com; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubb+QZESu3bOmtctiMbV7vT1eR/r1vliXGtatWB9avCxp0XG6cw NsCnb5809ZVbusgrcriO0ppOLFT2sp4HBFAERz9BQmL55zbe6pNC8h2oBavnRcpuc0dc6TYshQZ UnFHGlGep8op+vlswyoQDiU9Tpk/gGPYY83YAbE0XW28WGCBrudw3eSpPuCEa8VUlGO3g6Tzw7O zg0R76eIm0EXRYOU84Utl9l8AbE/R+7xk9Vt8UMypRrZaoDphrynDI3f6pFTQ/VZngpFR2ZqMTR rtxMAvWwkCBOl9r1jGz8T0T5jmmaHC9w/fWF3DQjh0m2jKFxZOgd5vyChXT2MeszIayTnBhM+ms qEMGCys1PcI40ltmqvYSWV7yHSXfIJdjjB9/NWtTbB2JBGgOv0mP/UZTsVQvIkSeWUi92ir6QA= = X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1005:: with SMTP id a5mr20625728otp.113.1549883166173; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:06:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1005:: with SMTP id a5mr20625606otp.113.1549883164520; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:06:04 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1549883164; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=gtHoqocaX9rYvg2sXKdrxGGr2J+Z+xfelPRdtdRH3bifBPBv/CxBLz9b/TVfPFn4OC krggIUi62u8fQtYNSKpg4ChG766GddjOW+mOlK8UVIL5U61Q88PwDunM4RUOOyovjEU7 LPSSYbjOYQSN71zP5q3fcEzXgRctNqzMfMUSuSQLjhtXYI8REq3p6+ANx56yi3zAfhkm vAVgo93fuXYAZuJDZEMUZbeQdEb2DLC+qK3VXmoKB/qixbmx4J0wma+0scjnUQng4u5w h2vyV1bIhgXz2/jANKPmSUdQIA52mzyCApa7NDFPb30mOdHxzflnXjItxHqqIRDnIibD eoMg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version; bh=zPI7PjhalKapOqadpYNDIzByO1yNXs4bj5jUAy0+XwM=; b=uZCsuit6ZLgdtXbvCgrWhG/oKVE11qUgubJOE6GpRfacsTVNN9TNXev8k3nC/27o5u MOMZISe5QNJswFdDeL68cBtclfXKclfQxqUCpURHc+m44owO+MGyVkFyalYltn1TISOj xytrkHNtQFb/P6c8UhTUGjPOBvzIH5YNBaUOdqHaKwjQln47+iTcaKaw02CZe9lcwlNp FFnoWdcY4zsGJCxoEdwW7s0hIN1LB+Q9dlkGGZtRuKbtl1Dh64K1uqZL2SQX/kaLMsZv s7TmNXt54svg+mwarRA5WKaRqarIsSCIJWuYOhc+TGNeUwNbBmvx/WE4KZ37hedpc2nW 8j/A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rjwysocki@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rjwysocki@gmail.com; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id r7sor5973023otq.70.2019.02.11.03.06.04 for (Google Transport Security); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:06:04 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rjwysocki@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.65; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rjwysocki@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rjwysocki@gmail.com; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbqhuaLzlFP3vnwI5lQfCp+NTR8q63Sd4/HJ6XtRio15ezN5QQmmTyNqLT2Rmn/CgtqS7GoG3E+06+CFBOjhCA= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5e8c:: with SMTP id f12mr28560952otl.343.1549883164127; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:06:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190129184902.102850-1-james.morse@arm.com> <15200237.N8Ro7ITLGE@aspire.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:05:52 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/26] APEI in_nmi() rework and SDEI wire-up 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:13 PM James Morse wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > 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. Thanks!