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=-10.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 C1D92C6377D for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 13:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3946135B for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 13:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232082AbhGVNLR (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2021 09:11:17 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:53920 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231925AbhGVNLR (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2021 09:11:17 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E55113E; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.36.146] (unknown [10.57.36.146]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAB6B3F694; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_=e2=9d=8c_FAIL=3a_Test_report_for_kernel_5=2e13=2e0?= =?UTF-8?Q?-rc7_=28arm-next=2c_8ab9b1a9=29?= To: Veronika Kabatova , Lorenzo Pieralisi Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Catalin Marinas , ACPI Devel Maling List , Will Deacon , CKI Project , Mark Rutland , Memory Management , skt-results-master@redhat.com, Jeff Bastian , Jan Stancek , Linux ARM , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Hanjun Guo , Sudeep Holla , lv.zheng@intel.com, Tony Luck , James Morse References: <20210629144415.GA28457@lpieralisi> <14ca6f72-9b0f-ebd7-9cf8-a5d6190c8e5d@arm.com> <20210629163543.GA12361@arm.com> <20210630103715.GA12089@lpieralisi> <20210630154923.GA16215@lpieralisi> <20210705161715.GA19877@lpieralisi> <20210716162617.GA1403@lpieralisi> From: Robin Murphy Message-ID: <3422218f-73cc-ed3d-025a-ccf809075968@arm.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 14:51:43 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 2021-07-22 13:38, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 6:26 PM Lorenzo Pieralisi > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 06:16:01PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 18:17, Lorenzo Pieralisi >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 08:18:22PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> In current code, even if the BERT were mapped with acpi_os_map_iomem() >>>>>> this would change nothing since it's acpi_os_ioremap() that runs the >>>>>> rule (backed up by EFI memory map region info). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Indeed. So the fact that acpi_os_map_memory() is backed by >>>>> acpi_os_ioremap() is something we should fix. So they should both >>>>> consult the EFI memory map, but have different fallback defaults if >>>>> the region is not annotated correctly. >>>> >>>> Put together patch below even though I am not really satisfied, a tad >>>> intrusive and duplicate code in generic/arch backends, compile tested >>>> only; overall this IO vs memory mapping distinction is a bit too fuzzy >>>> for my taste - there is legacy unfortunately to consider though. >>>> >>> >>> I'd say that this does not look unreasonable at all. Is there any way >>> we could get this tested on actual hw? >> >> Sure, I was meant to follow-up and was caught up in something else, >> sorry. >> >> I will clean up the log, push it out in a branch on Monday, CKI >> should pick it up. I will also think about other possible testing >> options. >> > > Hi, > > thanks for the patience with the testing, the stress-ng test couldn't > deal with a new glibc version and had to be fixed and this week > has just been crazy. > > I managed to do 2 runs of the updated tree with the stress-ng test > and it didn't hit the problem. Given how unreliably it reproduces it > doesn't mean all that much. I still have one more run pending and > can submit more if needed. > > However, we ran into a panic with this tree on a completely > different machine: > > https://gitlab.com/-/snippets/2152899/raw/main/snippetfile1.txt All the warnings from arch_setup_dma_ops() there are (unfortunately) pretty much legitimate for that platform, and should be gone again since rc2 with commit c1132702c71f. > The machine also hit a hardware error during LTP: > > https://gitlab.com/-/snippets/2152899/raw/main/snippetfile2.txt Hmm, if "access mode: secure" in that fault report implies that the firmnware itself has done something dodgy to raise an SError, I'm not sure there's much we can do about that... Robin.