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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CDAC433EF for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:54:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2B1610A4 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:54:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232585AbhJVJ4U (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2021 05:56:20 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:39672 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232577AbhJVJ4U (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2021 05:56:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1634896442; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=C2USPoZV9NF2EPdox749qvpVM6uWVZWDUstJXDc1hYo=; b=bkBaev6rk+UH2fCvyUqovx8w1tQGhAxf9TCUPcEzmnJ+6K+mnF6iaaJTOaw+k38HAppaLA WxfpBlkrNC9pjC+DPZR1VjQ/HPYmccSYKnN3i9k7IKyLgzGBR9ay8ZpRxp4HjYCFfitwjr gIyUhUecPY7MCKXAY+tHqxznLz9VrA8= Received: from mail-ed1-f71.google.com (mail-ed1-f71.google.com [209.85.208.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-38-9ier7l5DN0u6YdBh6CHAqA-1; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 05:54:01 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 9ier7l5DN0u6YdBh6CHAqA-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f71.google.com with SMTP id u17-20020a50d511000000b003daa3828c13so3162107edi.12 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:54:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C2USPoZV9NF2EPdox749qvpVM6uWVZWDUstJXDc1hYo=; b=BmfFXHaPRXWivg3jrKmNMocD4yOeGBzf2AwvxMw8Tx9u6OGiy1NcVoQWm/iIfDnetx 785kZDYLBewprsQo/3BGCqA7qJaG5skxwyvdVeo3j3YHVgHttGj3YVmKnQKPUQ48JAPn j7SX0EHE6gjEr30IBZ7oMzBmmFe7lpaB/FjEq8OtZniNOIzwto14lE3cM+iy6FgBey8n WbgvUMp/iYfRq6BY5v0dEpaOuxiCTXQpi/Omj45FGUmFFMkkGbmmNcbUaFlOMran+j9/ dD8k+qBzowwBCy3ZBQHl+p+m+gp1KWAt51e44avIaFBXJZSL6aWuItk9eEp5FxwQv2w2 E0/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+uNMBhPXl78xW8vhf3dfEpIe9CLaJA+WM7i557wIeyhUdY37v TGcro5/7T5HvHoji1DTzk5Nh1+duraBN6zq/+ELJD9srNzfjYp++pemRQ/rmiOad57X2dkJzeD+ fIzd0nAoHr3pv7s8t6na0 X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7ba8:: with SMTP id ne40mr13458337ejc.335.1634896440150; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:54:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz0nUmU/VPs5uTk8uPXNcnpHQqhf+vy6uuNxUCzfKX2Cbmu75sxkovfEIFnj/aIzo9jXxpgkA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7ba8:: with SMTP id ne40mr13458295ejc.335.1634896439860; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2001:1c00:c1e:bf00:1054:9d19:e0f0:8214? (2001-1c00-0c1e-bf00-1054-9d19-e0f0-8214.cable.dynamic.v6.ziggo.nl. [2001:1c00:c1e:bf00:1054:9d19:e0f0:8214]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b20sm1218540edd.50.2021.10.22.02.53.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <75d1ef5a-13d9-9a67-0139-90b27b084c84@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:53:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] x86/PCI: Ignore E820 reservations for bridge windows on newer systems Content-Language: en-US To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Mika Westerberg , =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=c5=84ski?= , Bjorn Helgaas , Myron Stowe , Juha-Pekka Heikkila , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Benoit_Gr=c3=a9goire?= , Hui Wang , stable@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" References: <20211022012034.GA2703195@bhelgaas> From: Hans de Goede In-Reply-To: <20211022012034.GA2703195@bhelgaas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Hi Bjorn, On 10/22/21 03:20, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 07:15:57PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> On 10/20/21 23:14, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:23:26PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> On 10/19/21 23:52, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 08:39:42PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>>>> Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system >>>>>> RAM in the PCI host bridge window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see >>>>>> commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address >>>>>> space"). >>>>>> >>>>>> To work around this bug Linux excludes E820 reserved addresses when >>>>>> allocating addresses from the PCI host bridge window since 2010. >>>>>> ... >>> >>>>> I haven't seen anybody else eager to merge this, so I guess I'll stick >>>>> my neck out here. >>>>> >>>>> I applied this to my for-linus branch for v5.15. >>>> >>>> Thank you, and sorry about the build-errors which the lkp >>>> kernel-test-robot found. >>>> >>>> I've just send out a patch which fixes these build-errors >>>> (verified with both .config-s from the lkp reports). >>>> Feel free to squash this into the original patch (or keep >>>> them separate, whatever works for you). >>> >>> Thanks, I squashed the fix in. >>> >>> HOWEVER, I think it would be fairly risky to push this into v5.15. >>> We would be relying on the assumption that current machines have all >>> fixed the BIOS defect that 4dc2287c1805 addressed, and we have little >>> evidence for that. >> >> It is a 10 year old BIOS defect, so hopefully anything from 2018 >> or later will not have it. > > We can hope. AFAIK, Windows allocates space top-down, while Linux > allocates bottom-up, so I think it's quite possible these defects > would never be discovered or fixed. In any event, I don't think we > have much evidence either way. Ack. >>> I'm not sure there's significant benefit to having this in v5.15. >>> Yes, the mainline v5.15 kernel would work on the affected machines, >>> but I suspect most people with those machines are running distro >>> kernels, not mainline kernels. >> >> Fedora and Arch do follow mainline pretty closely and a lot of >> users are affected by this (see the large number of BugLinks in >> the commit). >> >> I completely understand why you are reluctant to push this out, but >> your argument about most distros not running mainline kernels also >> applies to chances of people where this may cause a regression >> running mainline kernels also being quite small. > > True. > >>> This issue has been around a long time, so it's not like a regression >>> that we just introduced. If we fixed these machines and regressed >>> *other* machines, we'd be worse off than we are now. >> >> If we break one machine model and fix a whole bunch of other machines >> then in my book that is a win. Ideally we would not break anything, >> but we can only find out if we actually break anything if we ship >> the change. > > I'm definitely not going to try the "fix many, break one" argument on > Linus. Of course we want to fix systems, but IMO it's far better to > leave a system broken than it is to break one that used to work. Right, what I meant to say with "a win" is a step in the right direction, we definitely must address any regressions coming from this change as soon as we learn about them. >>> In the meantime, here's another possibility for working around this. >>> What if we discarded remove_e820_regions() completely, but aligned the >>> problem _CRS windows a little more? The 4dc2287c1805 case was this: >>> >>> BIOS-e820: 00000000bfe4dc00 - 00000000c0000000 (reserved) >>> pci_root PNP0A03:00: host bridge window [mem 0xbff00000-0xdfffffff] >>> >>> where the _CRS window was of size 0x20100000, i.e., 512M + 1M. At >>> least in this particular case, we could avoid the problem by throwing >>> away that first 1M and aligning the window to a nice 3G boundary. >>> Maybe it would be worth giving up a small fraction (less than 0.2% in >>> this case) of questionable windows like this? >> >> The PCI BAR allocation code tries to fall back to the BIOS assigned >> resource if the allocation fails. That BIOS assigned resource might >> fall outside of the host bridge window after we round the address. >> >> My initial gut instinct here is that this has a bigger chance >> of breaking things then my change. >> >> In the beginning of the thread you said that ideally we would >> completely stop using the E820 reservations for PCI host bridge >> windows. Because in hindsight messing with the windows on all >> machines just to work around a clear BIOS bug in some was not a >> good idea. >> >> This address-rounding/-aligning you now suggest, is again >> messing with the windows on all machines just to work around >> a clear BIOS bug in some. At least that is how I see this. > > That's true. I assume Red Hat has a bunch of machines and hopefully > an archive of dmesg logs from them. Those logs should contain good > E820 and _CRS information, so with a little scripting, maybe we could > get some idea of what's out there. We do have a (large-ish) test-lab, but that contains almost exclusively servers, where as the original problem was on Dell Precision laptops. Also I'm not sure if I can get aggregate data from the lab's machines. I can reserve time on any model we have to debug specific problems, but that is targeting one specific model. I'll ask around about this. Regards, Hans