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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D182EC433FE for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 12:37:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229628AbiEKMhb (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2022 08:37:31 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40832 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230199AbiEKMha (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2022 08:37:30 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5136EB0A66; Wed, 11 May 2022 05:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id CA5BC68C7B; Wed, 11 May 2022 14:37:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 14:37:24 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Conor.Dooley@microchip.com Cc: hch@lst.de, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Mike Rapoport Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for May 3 Message-ID: <20220511123724.GA25121@lst.de> References: <20220503172926.08215c77@canb.auug.org.au> <3f94c9a8-c927-5cc0-7d67-4b21c3d9dbaf@microchip.com> <9a424be9-380f-f99c-4126-25a00eba0271@microchip.com> <20220509141122.GA14555@lst.de> <505d41d1-1bc8-c8bc-5ebb-8a2b7934f3de@microchip.com> <20220511062232.GA32524@lst.de> <102578f2-5c10-e9c2-c1ef-e76ba90d011e@microchip.com> <20220511064832.GA761@lst.de> <2c0e2fbe-4e45-4acc-c2a7-4f4dcf9161a3@microchip.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2c0e2fbe-4e45-4acc-c2a7-4f4dcf9161a3@microchip.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:10:40AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote: > Without even trying the patch, I double checked the boot log from > 3f70356edf56 and I get a "software IO TLB: Cannot allocate buffer" > With the patch its a "software IO TLB: swiotlb_init_remap: failed > to allocate tlb structure". So spot on & I feel like an idiot for > not spotting that before! > > Is failing being fatal valid, or should it fail gracefully like it > used to do? To me, blissfully unaware about swiotlb, the "current" > behaviour of failing gracefully makes more sense. Given that we're at -rc6 I think the most important thing for now is to avoid a regression and restore the old behavior. I'll send out a series with this and the nslab related fixes for Xen today. But we should look into why allocating the memory fails for your plaforms. Does it have very little memory? I can't really think of why else the memblock allocation for swiotlb would fail.