Re: kernelci/staging-next bisection: sleep.login on rk3288-rock2-square #2286-staging

[Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com>]

On 12/01/2021 10:53, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> On 05/01/2021 09:13, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 03:09:14PM -0500, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>> Hello Mike,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 03:47:53PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the logs, it seems that implicitly adding reserved regions to
>>>> memblock.memory wasn't that bright idea :)
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to somehow clean up the hack then?
>>>
>>> The only difference between the clean solution and the hack is that
>>> the hack intended to achieved the exact same, but without adding the
>>> reserved regions to memblock.memory.
>>
>> I didn't consider adding reserved regions to memblock.memory as a clean
>> solution, this was still a hack, but I didn't think that things are that
>> fragile.
>>
>> I still think we cannot rely on memblock.reserved to detect
>> memory/zone/node sizes and the boot failure reported here confirms this.
>>  
>>> The comment on that problematic area says the reserved area cannot be
>>> used for DMA because of some unexplained hw issue, and that doing so
>>> prevents booting, but since the area got reserved, even with the clean
>>> solution, it shouldn't have never been used for DMA?
>>>
>>> So I can only imagine that the physical memory region is way more
>>> problematic than just for DMA. It sounds like that anything that
>>> touches it, including the CPU, will hang the system, not just DMA. It
>>> sounds somewhat similar to the other e820 direct mapping issue on x86?
>>
>> My understanding is that the boot failed because when I implicitly added
>> the reserved region to memblock.memory the memory size seen by
>> free_area_init() jumped from 2G to 4G because the reserved area was close
>> to 4G. The very first allocation would get a chunk from slightly below of
>> 4G and as there is no real memory there, the kernel would crash.
>>  
>>> If you want to test the hack on the arm board to check if it boots you
>>> can use the below commit:
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git/commit/?id=c3ea2633015104ce0df33dcddbc36f57de1392bc
>>
>> My take is your solution would boot with this memory configuration, but I
>> still don't think that using memblock.reserved for zone/node sizing is
>> correct.
> 
> The rk3288 platform has now been failing to boot for nearly a
> month on linux-next:
> 
>   https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/5ffbed0a31ad81239bc94cdb/
> 
> Until a fix or a new version of this patch is made, would it be
> possible to drop it or revert it so the platform become usable
> again?
> 
> Or if you want, I can make a cleaned-up version of my hack to
> ignore the problematic region if you still need your patch to be
> on linux-next, but that would probably be less than ideal.

By the way, another bisection found that this commit is also
breaking tegra124-nyan-big but only with both CONFIG_EFI=y
CONFIG_ARM_LPAE=y enabled:

  https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/5ff6b1e26cf19f3b10c94cc5/

The plain multi_v7_defconfig is booting fine:

  https://kernelci.org/test/plan/id/5ff6b0a1db91b8a2b9c94cba/

I haven't looked into this one or tried to make it boot like
rk3288, but please let me know if there's anything there that can
be done to help.

Thanks,
Guillaume