From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84E57173 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:22:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 15FJ3ige068549; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:21:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=CbeQvqjWYMEKIm/ohd1i/mP8vgkL07rDKlVpu0ojC1c=; b=EbTJXgQyBbHny+WfsPb8xFRbI2X5tr2lfEa+Yo5wMgLKy2+q4VNDKTABBouQmxV/J1Gk 1BrV87Gb/sTAQcL8BDrgB9g6t8oP/gaKKGBIg4JCEDyiSsPNIv/qnF7oO4dpyIw90nyJ VvVaq3LXfV63g3IYLpBu797ZoDKggVGeHqTaPJwTaIMoznSbWE9e5Jw/OkTE/Pbh6rGS xW26tnb/4c6TARHVeTrGPSJgjw/hs4PdOe6lNOhVnuPUit1OqiXqp83QQx5IvC3+blKw QuH+XzOxslnHvHPTtzgVvpgaiZd4hU5Jg3RiA3Tsh+8QBlH4niLJw7crK/+KWbhnT+5A gQ== Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3970pmk4nh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:21:44 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 15FJLfc7019130; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:21:41 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 394mj90wsf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:21:41 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 15FJKYbP26149338 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:20:34 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191DC4C044; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:21:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A1F4C040; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:21:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.174.39]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:21:35 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 22:21:32 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Qian Cai , Andrew Morton Cc: Mark Rutland , Naresh Kamboju , Miles Chen , Linux-Next Mailing List , linux-mm , Linux ARM , open list , Will Deacon , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev, Stephen Rothwell , Arnd Bergmann , Ard Biesheuvel , Catalin Marinas , Christophe Leroy Subject: Re: [next] [arm64] kernel BUG at arch/arm64/mm/physaddr.c Message-ID: References: <20210615124745.GA47121@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> <20210615131902.GB47121@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> <076665b9-9fb1-71da-5f7d-4d2c7f892103@quicinc.com> X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <076665b9-9fb1-71da-5f7d-4d2c7f892103@quicinc.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 7__BV3WxWPyUURMkkduVQYEarOn1Xzpx X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 7__BV3WxWPyUURMkkduVQYEarOn1Xzpx X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-06-15_07:2021-06-15,2021-06-15 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1011 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2106150119 On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:50:31AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: > > > On 6/15/2021 9:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Looking some more, it looks like that's correct in isolation, but it > > clashes with commit: > > > > 5831eedad2ac6f38 ("mm: replace CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES with CONFIG_NUMA") > > Just a data point. Reverting the commit alone fixed the same crash for me. Yeah, that commit didn't take into the account the change in pgdat_to_phys(). The patch below should fix it. In the long run I think we should get rid of contig_page_data and allocate NODE_DATA(0) for !NUMA case as well. Andrew, can you please add this as a fixup to "mm: replace CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES with CONFIG_NUMA"? diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c index a0e9cdb5bc38..6326cdf36c4f 100644 --- a/mm/sparse.c +++ b/mm/sparse.c @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ size_t mem_section_usage_size(void) static inline phys_addr_t pgdat_to_phys(struct pglist_data *pgdat) { -#ifndef CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES +#ifndef CONFIG_NUMA return __pa_symbol(pgdat); #else return __pa(pgdat); -- Sincerely yours, Mike.