From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (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 4537F13211F; Thu, 30 May 2024 12:46:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717073186; cv=none; b=PnaVRTP4yMOg0+Vys8bTd5WfaWZUCc3yYTGmNDm2c6k1yN51X2aVmYGUAzKW0F+pzrvT6bV24pzaT/HXor8Z/zDojJqOnxtouYSWSHVN+QBmQlDmc9zd5JnuB/xLyz7CKK65EjM8QNQ2f/8JAXt1Rdk++6mM672mKPlIZlt8E3s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717073186; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gxjZcr2PnZyvQMyCopRCK5av5SbxPnA/ce41gmyZI4k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=uJjzNh+68Uvae66q3X/5uLG7WH03YHoDms9sQ/JxDhxivjtAMTuRnpS+rRztZNMjpqk/cpEZQ+rwUkFLz4EkPtbvyPr/pYOnVzRmDuWuxKvuXMOuqaMiXPg03pQ/YXw23WyRHk+6Mmq7bezAdUoSa+Y/SIDm9ocuifklJqow+6Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ellerman.id.au; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.b=Z+fZaOsM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.b="Z+fZaOsM" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ellerman.id.au; s=201909; t=1717073182; bh=2PQslrF5DLJnjhxjVmppW6OzIMjxkmaQb7qN4cQE65Y=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Z+fZaOsMOEUTjZCZMamY0ob93TTFoxEs/E/5qjZIhX9yHTy60nzW+0GD3pVHpb8TB b/in31fd2yRpgO82h+XfGopnNAfaSqQGCeWCoNCdHoljCWvGha9lVKgLtFaCWErtOA tMfUdblW1V4uwFpAfL77YS6hy2esknHHvplmM+ypb+OuCnhmvj/R0rS7X4J1kskl5L 4Mu7rYzVGMejQ5kFlmjmTcB9Gy8fSejfSLiV7XCuTQGKGIB1y9nFwyp8xvfPNoVA/f zXn4pYXs2+Re1dNMgT/Ogt/J0YzliE+LyYP/POMjAw1I0FrPS62JqUu9+mzfD13BJy VG8NOpgcC8lLw== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4VqmG402Gjz4x1Q; Thu, 30 May 2024 22:46:19 +1000 (AEST) From: Michael Ellerman To: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" Cc: John Garry , Jens Axboe , "Martin K. Petersen" , Damien Le Moal , Niklas Cassel , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Guenter Roeck , Christoph Hellwig , Linux kernel regressions list Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/23] scsi: initialize scsi midlayer limits before allocating the queue In-Reply-To: References: <20240520151536.GA32532@lst.de> Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 22:46:18 +1000 Message-ID: <8734pz4gdh.fsf@mail.lhotse> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" writes: > [CCing the regression list, as it should be in the loop for regressions: > https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.html] > > On 20.05.24 17:15, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> Adding ben and the linuxppc list. > > Hmm, no reply and no other progress to get this resolved afaics. So lets > bring Michael into the mix, he might be able to help out. Sorry I didn't see the original forward for some reason. I haven't seen this on my G5, but it's hard drive is on SATA. I think the CDROM is pata_macio, but there isn't a disk in the drive to test with. > BTW TWIMC: a PowerMac G5 user user reported similar symptoms here > recently: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218858 AFAICS that report is from a 4K page size kernel (Page orders: ... virtual = 12), so there must be something else going on? I've asked the reporter to confirm the page size. cheers >> Context: pata_macio initialization now fails as we enforce that the >> segment size is set properly. >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 04:52:29PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> pata_macio_common_init() Calling ata_host_activate() with limit 65280 >>> ... >>> max_segment_size is 65280; PAGE_SIZE is 65536; BLK_MAX_SEGMENT_SIZE is 65536 >>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 12 at block/blk-settings.c:202 blk_validate_limits+0x2d4/0x364 >>> ... >>> >>> This is with PPC_BOOK3S_64 which selects a default page size of 64k. >> >> Yeah. Did you actually manage to use pata macio previously? Or is >> it just used because it's part of the pmac default config? >> >>> Looking at the old code, I think it did what you suggested above, >> >>> but assuming that the driver requested a lower limit on purpose that >>> may not be the best solution. >> >>> Never mind, though - I updated my test configuration to explicitly >>> configure the page size to 4k to work around the problem. With that, >>> please consider this report a note in case someone hits the problem >>> on a real system (and sorry for the noise). >> >> Yes, the idea behind this change was to catch such errors. So far >> most errors have been drivers setting lower limits than what the >> hardware can actually handle, but I'd love to track this down. >> >> If the hardware can't actually handle the lower limit we should >> probably just fail the probe gracefully with a well comment if >> statement instead.