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 C67C4C169C4 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:14:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7138E2146E for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:14:02 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7138E2146E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0473D8E008A; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:14:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id F12168E0002; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:14:01 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id DB2F08E008A; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:14:01 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8DC8E0002 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:14:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id d62so1023293edd.19 for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 06:14:01 -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:subject:to:cc :references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EziGmp/vAxX4pR41r7H7vzIbmZXngp2oIA8sZZKX01I=; b=qJGsvXGl/CW1ve9JUU1i+8FEK55dOW812HoObilCqMvZ7JbqRL6kWMOaWIjPG7rNCf 3KTCmYwb5KhAqtcLECFLW2ImujWAEk3+PaCSbgRXTqqCq/Og6KPxj9hbfhfmoWcYYAmp wMQDaZj5IjxFYpTWon9+dcLJqCdrFNXP7GjENmz6ow0AtWJD3gbGylzf3d3qFrtssz5H EsV04EWoB43fC/ePOIeu8SepqlTye9xA96XQb02TjuKT0D6wXg+VNiA+KzD2nqvKC7mE dkv5eQd3/4uroNVeYK2lXBVnoIaN6SFGLMTuvzBEbeF1fOnIMTJ6I3cel48TlCMTMkn6 +8YA== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of james.morse@arm.com designates 217.140.101.70 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=james.morse@arm.com X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaF1u2F504v8LpVZk4gIhVMFMtwv2Dj57kRDO7zrJYfVkx1tk1R PeeTXtYDjN1hBlIZBw0zF0xghJ6XyLTbdCC4KoJK9KhCHDuzUjTC+1W4LZpX7C4nskSjLxCGcLg tvIhnFr7tLR2AZif0Ni3HukfMIFwrOQ8nGJY0EGoR5Cg0/sJO0rF89FT8qmXBCCLNAQ== X-Received: by 2002:a50:e8cc:: with SMTP id l12mr16758780edn.117.1549635240950; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 06:14:00 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYkWqNTuxGJIfs5jzJwBToAeeRNf1thmkPipNLiw2ruNK0Wqob+pdbafvWk9VCkyxVnOe9O X-Received: by 2002:a50:e8cc:: with SMTP id l12mr16758686edn.117.1549635239354; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 06:13:59 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1549635239; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=JWrKqF22i6WjNPaf1+ETBIZcorkrKN/rfFNFzDSm2PpCOwmJlNJvMSxeJCUIBoMF/L G0zI4O5YbchbKgi9dENsXEgKBMKN8kz+z52WNYhm/aZs5g4o7iL+yiZLCmC/AwA/NX7T 8qfuDSCfoK7D3msW5tyYvXlcNgJwzajPteqaJ4CnzrtRy0xJQ2U6ZFy8cMBOQELAu7PZ 4yZzpceP5GdoiIe8ljCMAaGLMErQklYlBqWGbNPBQxsl+euk44mldqDrCzImRZLg/47R wXMHkUhMaOFEGGJm/+aB32pQtuu4w/2Y8EAsUens6Lr8w2yQ3qNURIVLMwwULw+QgFnl PZzw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=EziGmp/vAxX4pR41r7H7vzIbmZXngp2oIA8sZZKX01I=; b=XK5z/+OOue9ZgMxCo6J3FbPQaVUtKa4afmETZb77Q1inGIKMv2A8vWfrzn7B99Lf3B KzXiBsWyz1MFpT1YMLwLV0Y5GfhKPm8VEShhlCkih7WYHD91CY6W9m9j8E0d0wzkrNJy LPe4OGUfhoswM6YN8TrasCxz3oHvlG6sDuLq6kj4dYL2dCyl3p0kR6Ko79uLgFdVKiHz wnZVOjaI26G45xQfWLdqvk498FY9iOCNm6Aj9ZRpblb3URHqq6iVwS9fQt8TxghS9aQr 6JKECRY4CX1GwG8HkpG0r7GCUg1+2BPKl0V1axbknJf+h4x1j5VAgi1/FHMmYTQz8tqk gBJA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of james.morse@arm.com designates 217.140.101.70 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=james.morse@arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g5-v6si1128076ejp.46.2019.02.08.06.13.58 for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 06:13:59 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of james.morse@arm.com designates 217.140.101.70 as permitted sender) client-ip=217.140.101.70; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of james.morse@arm.com designates 217.140.101.70 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=james.morse@arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D82A78; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:13:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.196.105] (eglon.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.105]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3706A3F557; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:13:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/26] APEI in_nmi() rework and SDEI wire-up To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Borislav Petkov Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Marc Zyngier , Christoffer Dall , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Naoya Horiguchi , Len Brown , Tony Luck , Dongjiu Geng , Xie XiuQi References: <20190129184902.102850-1-james.morse@arm.com> <15200237.N8Ro7ITLGE@aspire.rjw.lan> From: James Morse Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:13:53 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <15200237.N8Ro7ITLGE@aspire.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 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? Thanks, James