From: Mike Rapoport <email@example.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Guillaume Tucker <email@example.com>,
Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <email@example.com>,
Mike Rapoport <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Baoquan He <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: kernelci/staging-next bisection: sleep.login on rk3288-rock2-square #2286-staging
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 11:13:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210105091330.GD832698@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
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
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:
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-05 9:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <firstname.lastname@example.org>
2020-12-11 21:53 ` kernelci/staging-next bisection: sleep.login on rk3288-rock2-square #2286-staging Guillaume Tucker
2020-12-13 8:23 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-12-18 21:59 ` Guillaume Tucker
2021-01-03 13:47 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-01-03 20:09 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2021-01-05 9:13 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2021-01-12 10:53 ` Guillaume Tucker
2021-01-12 11:10 ` Guillaume Tucker
2021-01-12 12:06 ` Mike Rapoport
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).