Re: Bug report: kernel paniced when system hibernates

From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
Cc: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn@rivosinc.com>,
	"Atish Patra" <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	"Anup Patel" <anup@brainfault.org>,
	"Anup Patel" <apatel@ventanamicro.com>,
	"Alexandre Ghiti" <alex@ghiti.fr>,
	robh@kernel.org, jeeheng.sia@starfivetech.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, palmer@rivosinc.com,
	leyfoon.tan@starfivetech.com, mason.huo@starfivetech.com,
	"Guo Ren" <guoren@kernel.org>,
	"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"Song Shuai" <suagrfillet@gmail.com>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	"Andrew Jones" <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Subject: Re: Bug report: kernel paniced when system hibernates
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 15:59:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230526-steep-omen-a5a46a1086bf@spud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHVXubiDezbwZO6X2btvgpq-XqHnxZjXzaMnSK2YrHc_ioLx8Q@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1754 bytes --]

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 03:14:33PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:24 PM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 01:06:04PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:39 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:37:40AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Any testing of hibernation still needs to revert the patch until we
> > > > > have the proper fix.
> > > >
> > > > "the patch" is what exactly? I assume you don't mean depending on
> > > > NONPORTABLE, since that is a Kconfig option.
> > >
> > > Nope. Sorry I meant the commit
> > >
> > > 3335068 ("riscv: Use PUD/P4D/PGD pages for the linear mapping")
> >
> > Ah, if your SBI implementation is one of the affected ones, yeah.
> > If not, you can just set NONPORTABLE :)
> 
> @Björn Töpel emitted the idea of excluding from the hibernation all
> the memory nodes in the "/reserved-memory" node
> (https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.yaml):
> I have to admit that I don't see why it is not done by default by the
> kernel.

My understanding was that it was perfectly fine to use reserved memory
nodes to fence off some memory to use in device drivers etc, which then
may need to be saved/restored.

> Unless there is stuff in this node that needs to be "hibernated", I
> think that would be a very good solution since we would not rely on
> the name of the "internal" nodes of "/reserved-memory" (i.e.
> "mmode_resv").
> 
> I'm digging into why it is not done by default, just wanted to have
> your feedback before the week-end :)

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv