From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=qWQb=4B=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
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=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,
	USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 46EBFC2BA83
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:42:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF6D7217F4
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:42:18 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=c-s.fr header.i=@c-s.fr header.b="sZorrvgN"
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AF6D7217F4
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=c-s.fr
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48JCkc0hbXzDqV4
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:42:16 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=c-s.fr
 (client-ip=93.17.236.30; helo=pegase1.c-s.fr;
 envelope-from=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=c-s.fr
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key;
 unprotected) header.d=c-s.fr header.i=@c-s.fr header.a=rsa-sha256
 header.s=mail header.b=sZorrvgN; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr (pegase1.c-s.fr [93.17.236.30])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48JChW5hFkzDqHr
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:40:26 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: from localhost (mailhub1-int [192.168.12.234])
 by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48JChP5r4pz9vCQf;
 Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:40:21 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: localhost; dkim=pass
 reason="1024-bit key; insecure key"
 header.d=c-s.fr header.i=@c-s.fr header.b=sZorrvgN; dkim-adsp=pass;
 dkim-atps=neutral
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c-s.fr
Received: from pegase1.c-s.fr ([192.168.12.234])
 by localhost (pegase1.c-s.fr [192.168.12.234]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id eq5fshwkQBVW; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:40:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [192.168.25.192])
 by pegase1.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48JChP4myJz9vCQZ;
 Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:40:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=c-s.fr; s=mail;
 t=1581590421; bh=KX/Bf+44urcJ+M7SRbj0cLc9DnYSDfuYYz2j2RUtDIo=;
 h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From;
 b=sZorrvgNZs/DTsuS53wt8WvSgGCpj97AGtw1XpGSHVpVxMGjMzmpEBKxu2D4v07OX
 zVfw60DRealJF3FMpiR4gDj5eDvU9Yi8ivuXuDeG1IU4FxoIfg9u+TgmmioEpVIhge
 IF44jXccQd+bLWpv4KaEi9/5sZa7uw9YEFMscOZA=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EA58B83E;
 Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:40:22 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at c-s.fr
Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023)
 with ESMTP id N2rjANNu6E0L; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:40:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from pc16570vm.idsi0.si.c-s.fr (unknown [192.168.4.90])
 by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369BF8B835;
 Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:40:22 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [Regression 5.6-rc1][Bisected b6231ea2b3c6] Powerpc 8xx doesn't
 boot anymore
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>, Li Yang
 <leoyang.li@nxp.com>, Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@nxp.com>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <0d45fa64-51ee-0052-cb34-58c770c5b3ce@c-s.fr>
 <f67f7566-24f2-9c71-36be-2e55ec436097@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Message-ID: <f68d7a21-63b6-07a1-09de-5e66f422dcae@c-s.fr>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:40:21 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f67f7566-24f2-9c71-36be-2e55ec436097@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>,
 "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>



On 02/13/2020 07:45 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 12/02/2020 15.24, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Hi Rasmus,
>>
>> Kernel 5.6-rc1 silently fails on boot.
>>
>> I bisected the problem to commit b6231ea2b3c6 ("soc: fsl: qe: drop
>> broken lazy call of cpm_muram_init()")
>>
>> I get a bad_page_fault() for an access at address 8 in
>> cpm_muram_alloc_common(), called from cpm_uart_console_setup() via
>> cpm_uart_allocbuf()
> 
> Sorry about that. But I'm afraid I don't see what I could have done
> differently - the patch series, including b6231ea2b3c6, has been in
> -next since 20191210, both you and ppc-dev were cc'ed on the entire
> series (last revision sent November 28). And I've been dogfooding the
> patches on both arm- and ppc-derived boards ever since (but obviously
> only for a few cpus).

Yes, this patch series should have ringed a bell in my head, looks like 
I'm the one who introduced this 4 years ago through commit 4d486e008379 
("soc/fsl/qe: fix Oops on CPM1 (and likely CPM2)")

But I had completely forgotten that patch until I did some git blame 
this morning on this lazy call.


> 
>> Reverting the guilty commit on top of 5.6-rc1 is not trivial.
>>
>> In your commit text you explain that cpm_muram_init() is called via
>> subsys_initcall. But console init is done before that, so it cannot work.
> 
> No, but neither did the code I removed seem to work - how does doing
> spin_lock_init on a held spinlock, and then unlocking it, work? Is
> everything-spinlock always a no-op in your configuration? And even so,
> I'd think a GFP_KERNEL allocation under spin_lock_irqsave() would
> trigger some splat somewhere?
> 
> Please note I'm not claiming my patch is not at fault, it clearly is, I
> just want to try to understand how I could have been wrong about the
> "nobody can have been relying on it" part.
> 

It seems spin_lock_init() does just nothing.
spin_lock_irqsave() just disable IRQs and increases preempt_count.
spin_lock_irqrestore() restore IRQ state, decreace preempt_count and 
call preempt_schedule if preempt_count reaches 0.

Maybe with some debugging options like DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP could detect it ?

>> Do you have a fix for that ?
> 
> Not right now, but I'll have a look. It's true that the patch probably
> doesn't revert cleanly, but it shouldn't be hard to add back those few
> lines in the appropriate spot, with a big fat comment that this does
> something very fishy (at least as a temporary measure if we don't find a
> proper solution soonish).
> 

Thanks
Christophe