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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB1FC433F5 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:16:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3616261A7B for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:16:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232006AbhJURST (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:18:19 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:30242 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232055AbhJURSS (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:18:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1634836562; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PVbmNx2Q8EjJXm8nyHGx5Ousb89stVDtJGzhnXN95ec=; b=RKmnSQsvCTEjTMAhdvAaihfVfvEB+HRm7l7oPg5ZCkFfp03qLakZp7t2Ywpv0fzyQEmS5f CYCUEQQRcTgVyHsgOkTYoFbrcUrGKl5p9jrU+FyRLJRw9oC0//PSpw8tDwmo/5yHaDtQ5d AlsAM/H7i6etIZIakZYhX55HVQCKDhk= Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-593--Ud2DbZyPP2_xoRNjy2rdQ-1; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:16:00 -0400 X-MC-Unique: -Ud2DbZyPP2_xoRNjy2rdQ-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id g28-20020a50d0dc000000b003dae69dfe3aso1063842edf.7 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:16:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PVbmNx2Q8EjJXm8nyHGx5Ousb89stVDtJGzhnXN95ec=; b=6iXnSFCxTw9VllTPQ67UOSEvjOmqKjV6hv4neDUZtF9AqKk4ToM1GOCuIzdm3eDAaD ZoIZLwj2Mxm9+ghS4eBzVxdFxokCJxRtoH/vbe4f8VuU5V2BdS2Ly2iwIVFhCNssb0fG Hd6cXiCLHBG1t/8p2+lGddZsJg0HCjvogKOIVrf0ahxhtT96SEvkzECs/5vSYNVu64bu MnBez4lKcxNIv289HjrdKUR41r6983q18DEnnsoeoCGiWIQ2hq/S//3iDX9TBPb10JEc BIJrxV+ZoHTWktrUP/VYSMTWTtaSU2W8W9uen3zmoq7/P1KfKDpxdPTRlHedELMm9FnB AuSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531gf6TtTpBeYar9f/wVN2a00DGOBSkSVKSov+qEXtiexHN1Quml aHr1TjaGJbadH3Z/3kQ8ca1EiqSLQ5qkEZgoGqAxol5fMzoUD1nrSbLN3oLKgHWHT8/zo7FUyui omqbfMbXfGR8a7BBEdqWbcQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1c0e:: with SMTP id nc14mr8722280ejc.103.1634836559579; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9Ddy1dmXjTr32jRFjXqDaqxR5La1DixwmbDJ79+PUHh5JU3yjOgvx/JD5tj/TOPgEtON1kg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1c0e:: with SMTP id nc14mr8722245ejc.103.1634836559359; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2001:1c00:c1e:bf00:1054:9d19:e0f0:8214? (2001-1c00-0c1e-bf00-1054-9d19-e0f0-8214.cable.dynamic.v6.ziggo.nl. [2001:1c00:c1e:bf00:1054:9d19:e0f0:8214]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z4sm3646641edd.46.2021.10.21.10.15.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:15:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <73aeec22-2ec7-ff21-5c89-c13f2e90a213@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:15:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] x86/PCI: Ignore E820 reservations for bridge windows on newer systems Content-Language: en-US To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Mika Westerberg , =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=c5=84ski?= , Bjorn Helgaas , Myron Stowe , Juha-Pekka Heikkila , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Benoit_Gr=c3=a9goire?= , Hui Wang , stable@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" References: <20211020211455.GA2641031@bhelgaas> From: Hans de Goede In-Reply-To: <20211020211455.GA2641031@bhelgaas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi Bjorn, On 10/20/21 23:14, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:23:26PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> On 10/19/21 23:52, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 08:39:42PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system >>>> RAM in the PCI host bridge window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see >>>> commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address >>>> space"). >>>> >>>> To work around this bug Linux excludes E820 reserved addresses when >>>> allocating addresses from the PCI host bridge window since 2010. >>>> ... > >>> I haven't seen anybody else eager to merge this, so I guess I'll stick >>> my neck out here. >>> >>> I applied this to my for-linus branch for v5.15. >> >> Thank you, and sorry about the build-errors which the lkp >> kernel-test-robot found. >> >> I've just send out a patch which fixes these build-errors >> (verified with both .config-s from the lkp reports). >> Feel free to squash this into the original patch (or keep >> them separate, whatever works for you). > > Thanks, I squashed the fix in. > > HOWEVER, I think it would be fairly risky to push this into v5.15. > We would be relying on the assumption that current machines have all > fixed the BIOS defect that 4dc2287c1805 addressed, and we have little > evidence for that. It is a 10 year old BIOS defect, so hopefully anything from 2018 or later will not have it. > I'm not sure there's significant benefit to having this in v5.15. > Yes, the mainline v5.15 kernel would work on the affected machines, > but I suspect most people with those machines are running distro > kernels, not mainline kernels. Fedora and Arch do follow mainline pretty closely and a lot of users are affected by this (see the large number of BugLinks in the commit). I completely understand why you are reluctant to push this out, but your argument about most distros not running mainline kernels also applies to chances of people where this may cause a regression running mainline kernels also being quite small. > This issue has been around a long time, so it's not like a regression > that we just introduced. If we fixed these machines and regressed > *other* machines, we'd be worse off than we are now. If we break one machine model and fix a whole bunch of other machines then in my book that is a win. Ideally we would not break anything, but we can only find out if we actually break anything if we ship the change. > Convince me otherwise if you see this differently :) See above :) > In the meantime, here's another possibility for working around this. > What if we discarded remove_e820_regions() completely, but aligned the > problem _CRS windows a little more? The 4dc2287c1805 case was this: > > BIOS-e820: 00000000bfe4dc00 - 00000000c0000000 (reserved) > pci_root PNP0A03:00: host bridge window [mem 0xbff00000-0xdfffffff] > > where the _CRS window was of size 0x20100000, i.e., 512M + 1M. At > least in this particular case, we could avoid the problem by throwing > away that first 1M and aligning the window to a nice 3G boundary. > Maybe it would be worth giving up a small fraction (less than 0.2% in > this case) of questionable windows like this? The PCI BAR allocation code tries to fall back to the BIOS assigned resource if the allocation fails. That BIOS assigned resource might fall outside of the host bridge window after we round the address. My initial gut instinct here is that this has a bigger chance of breaking things then my change. In the beginning of the thread you said that ideally we would completely stop using the E820 reservations for PCI host bridge windows. Because in hindsight messing with the windows on all machines just to work around a clear BIOS bug in some was not a good idea. This address-rounding/-aligning you now suggest, is again messing with the windows on all machines just to work around a clear BIOS bug in some. At least that is how I see this. I can understand that you're not entirely happy with my patch, but it does get rid of the use of E820 reservations for any current and future machines, removing any messing with the _CRS returned windows which we are doing. I also understand that you're not entirely comfortable with my "fix" not causing regressions else where. If you want to delay my fix till 5.16-rc1 that is fine (1). Regards, Hans 1) The stable series will likely pick it up soon after 5.16-rc1 though, so not sure how much that actually helps with getting more testing time.