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 8A2C8C282CE for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE14218A4 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:35:13 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3FE14218A4 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 C891A8E012A; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C0EE18E0126; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:35:12 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id AAFAC8E012A; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:35:12 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB538E0126 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id w51so2273234edw.7 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:35:12 -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=TkW8GIak1sWS2ca5tIb1/Cjm6iWO273i074PYzFAbxw=; b=KNEaVxDQdV8v067RQNWiStjlhGeMi3tckB8cIUlr8XitfJGJl+nPm4gfRaMcobDQJD QKsbmTgUznHkOGdrcJhy7R7yZRJbhZY16gp0MT/0PRX9FpL5UYtLuUHTdQ6KcHWAdVod WSpnoCndl1qCgoOFJsaWBik0/8AqmeA5iTg3sgksUTWORX+RnGrJOxljL57Y/HiyI01W WZSkzxLZuxhQhR7fw/yrjy8OFRxd2hEfMBRtYEa6Pvr6rTfecEXJMJ9TIRpBxWkvJDwF EM8BEsA10YBDPV429QpqY7HFORmZIYyLikv/xucVcg+f7xgMX8Ny59wCYO7KmWh4u7cU xSLA== 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: AHQUAuY6RRXAYyxNi6u3kk4WLYw8LB1za9NmfltCaFD6v76XXW10l7O3 /696UXRabWaz6k7AkPX2n8xP0ZA+8G258dGmM65HDMWLcMNaWSWy9M4F+aywpdV23uOy7aTChby 4d87x84X8F/O+8G3hk84vkRiWjq+vyGUF0Du1L/EU0BDCFNuo6r9wAAG4v46oopIBRg== X-Received: by 2002:a50:be44:: with SMTP id b4mr29448513edi.41.1549910111702; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:35:11 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYs/7UUhrJC9DtVPdwU+U6t9ybbjJOmrt7ZvEyA9QB6kgvrV99J45AHnibGMvJ5NMrvJkGg X-Received: by 2002:a50:be44:: with SMTP id b4mr29448457edi.41.1549910110626; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:35:10 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1549910110; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=AMR/iX0TVK/o4luGkBKuEFjW6z1slAUfy50GJv8iXE7fDAbFyiFauZ6Khs/07L6VQ7 8fEQslaV2vb/ZXA0Og11MSXFEbAdMSLEtPVqbr40KrZfrJfZgZWTK+zg+P38KPddFqxv PUOThoGgegixzLsrfgm40RcHxtMXkV/GKVu8Gsh+HmRQAIgemeLJ2mVLEJMxJ3Q8zBkl 29xBWvLl5suTO09d5Uwt1BnYWevdwf2yc2VYIdILufWXmqSqP+70itCgzJi/k2HIlseT 9iD9D3eEaHvQmuSrtPtOytxfJhlzuXVeNSUFynOk8QAXGwa+dualtkSrT1NC2UKbIPgI zoUg== 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=TkW8GIak1sWS2ca5tIb1/Cjm6iWO273i074PYzFAbxw=; b=V8XaeuKYujAqrdE234HAW8q8xHDJILZGAUv0RvS+TyEc4nEmMTvs00AKOZXj739uZi hOnGMbPthQ/UqbW25cjhSlKp6JZIoqiIftzCMYdPzYGoPV9ZqDPXJvg30pjzVhUmUkmz L1V1Ih1gAdGDdH+dqbHEEhYBZy+9lVnvTOZuGKRUayIrCBQVotg80OgCpx7dWPp3A5xc nmEGG0l4yWaeU6LPEuSiJxYXZjIZfkmX9EhIy+v3wxQbd1IrCNVbiWNG/KxCnckhVZNZ DPXmIDjLChaWrjT6XFhxoR1uO/TzZBDPqo4j2deAP7u8K1bdeFgBzsJZ6eyPO4xhRCYm NzGQ== 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 (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w11si2037718eda.242.2019.02.11.10.35.09 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:35:10 -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 67C0AEBD; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:35:08 -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 788563F557; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:35:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/26] APEI in_nmi() rework and SDEI wire-up To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" 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 References: <20190129184902.102850-1-james.morse@arm.com> <15200237.N8Ro7ITLGE@aspire.rjw.lan> From: James Morse Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:35:03 +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: 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 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! James