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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 BF114C4338F for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E7161AF0 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236738AbhG0Om7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:42:59 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51402 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232432AbhG0Om6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:42:58 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 292A9C061757 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 07:42:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=AkaBNPYXPSH5QJ9u4d74khubMTmlV7qCcVkpVnXkH6c=; b=B7Hl2VPksWfIo72jKQsjVRfnNf o7Y9idx/haNq4838PpWgvohXJVAmCOhjTF9To668mPk4Jc9kNdGvSQo4rWuEDngn96bapceYxJIdn F7JOClN8imgyLebuR6apGwD7e/WTbL+C9jeSMWRhbQqSslH5xkeRa6pD7r8X2WOGuxdgboTK8riiT K1J+0Jns4lYcq2A7L8wvohBzjqbj3JEHwg9IvybN5juVC8nf+pAdOblSCLo2i2QZSfLs8hm4TV0Is AgbgT4//szySyi6ghQIMAnPIeKflxHrBJ/x+4u8mHe4nfbO6+a4XLBV16GqiJ38MRGrqbQP0e7n5i uiM+0F8A==; Received: from mcgrof by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1m8OIA-00F4rK-CM; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:42:46 +0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 07:42:46 -0700 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Bruno Goncalves Cc: Rasmus Villemoes , Alexander Egorenkov , akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@alien8.de, corbet@lwn.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jeyu@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Desaulniers , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Dave Young Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] init/initramfs.c: do unpacking asynchronously Message-ID: References: <87sg04p315.fsf@oc8242746057.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: Luis Chamberlain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 04:27:08PM +0200, Bruno Goncalves wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 4:21 PM Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 04:12:54PM +0200, Bruno Goncalves wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 3:55 PM Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 09:31:54AM +0200, Bruno Goncalves wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 1:46 PM Rasmus Villemoes > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24/07/2021 09.46, Alexander Egorenkov wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since e7cb072eb988 ("init/initramfs.c: do unpacking asynchronously"), we > > > > > > > started seeing the following problem on s390 arch regularly: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ 5.039734] wait_for_initramfs() called before rootfs_initcalls > > > > > > > > So some context here, which might help. > > > > > > > > The initramfs_cookie is initialized until a a rootfs_initcall() is > > > > called, in this case populate_rootfs(). The code is small, so might > > > > as well include it: > > > > > > > > static int __init populate_rootfs(void) > > > > { > > > > initramfs_cookie = async_schedule_domain(do_populate_rootfs, NULL, > > > > &initramfs_domain); > > > > if (!initramfs_async) > > > > wait_for_initramfs(); > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > rootfs_initcall(populate_rootfs); > > > > > > > > The warning you see comes from a situation where a wait_for_initramfs() > > > > gets called but we haven't yet initialized initramfs_cookie. There are > > > > only a few calls for wait_for_initramfs() in the kernel, and the only > > > > thing I can think of is that somehow s390 may rely on a usermode helper > > > > early on, but not every time. > > > > > > > > What umh calls does s390 issue? > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, we haven't been able to find the root cause, but since > > > > > June 23rd we haven't hit this panic... > > > > > > > > > > Btw, this panic we were hitting only when testing kernels from "scsi" > > > > > and "block" trees. > > > > > > > > Do you use drdb maybe? > > > > > > No, the machines we were able to reproduce the problem don't have drdb. > > > > Are there *any* umh calls early on boot on the s390 systems? If so > > chances are that is the droid you are looking for. > > Sorry Luis, > > I was just replying the question mentioning an old thread > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+QYu4qxf2CYe2gC6EYnOHXPKS-+cEXL=MnUvqRFaN7W1i6ahQ@mail.gmail.com/T/#u) > on ppc64le. > > regarding the "umh" it doesn't show anything on ppc64le boot. There is not a single pr_*() call on kernel/umh.c, and so unless the respective ppc64le / s390 umh callers have a print, we won't know if you really did use a print. Can you reproduce the failure? How often? Luis