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 lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 607BCC636CC for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:40:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4P8trR42P2z3cLr for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 02:40:23 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=swWEqYBy; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=sachinp@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=swWEqYBy; dkim-atps=neutral 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 lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4P8tqM5FC5z3bjy for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 02:39:27 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 315CD1tm023142 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:39:24 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=content-type : mime-version : subject : from : in-reply-to : date : cc : content-transfer-encoding : message-id : references : to; s=pp1; bh=6Ptm80l+rvsczds6ybSHHv9mvejdewD/X80agvHfnzY=; b=swWEqYBy12n3I1MGR79yGBZxm/2DdNaYMpW+MUeuXy4mF5jwS2RFtRlyRxsUw4dytzCj MAmpJZXr9iMxg/HXkE7ZERMNzm1prHOVoLBB59PP1CWY7faylfX5Fscwchg7bGDL+DT0 F5bFPwDaLuQEYhA4SAQ46AQPwVf/a04q911yxdyyzSkJ4UC/NZLxPfdnDfJs18khIV9W SiYgpKogX6DJ5N5wZk4FWM3OM3K8pGnGUoCrVUIENjyNiJukO/y7SbbzgPLyIHPmRYW1 aAVrD+xR4dqROtSArbwtjZM6Ph/5TUWK3DCaC4zR/JLamTzyqrtBUaPaBQm1JfPcCvtr vQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3nj16r2w2f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 05 Feb 2023 15:39:23 +0000 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 315Fa0t6030690 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:39:23 GMT Received: from ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (6a.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3nj16r2w20-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 05 Feb 2023 15:39:23 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 31597ViX015504; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:39:21 GMT Received: from smtprelay07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.229]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3nhf06s2s3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 05 Feb 2023 15:39:21 +0000 Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.103]) by smtprelay07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 315FdII252494626 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:39:18 GMT Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A262004B; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:39:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C79420040; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:39:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [9.43.105.62]) by smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 15:39:18 +0000 (GMT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.300.101.1.3\)) Subject: Re: [merge] WARN arch/powerpc/kernel/irq_64.c:278 From: Sachin Sant In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2023 21:09:07 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <7C586644-B8B4-4B41-86E3-80A60D5FE1C7@linux.ibm.com> To: Nicholas Piggin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.300.101.1.3) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: jWaLQqM1B8CUIvuPASKSCsIcEtK4_W7a X-Proofpoint-GUID: QaukRVQOA90GhSF9_0DmvVojAgavlgK3 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.219,Aquarius:18.0.930,Hydra:6.0.562,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2023-02-05_04,2023-02-03_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2212070000 definitions=main-2302050133 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxppc-dev Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" > On 03-Feb-2023, at 3:55 PM, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >=20 > On Fri Feb 3, 2023 at 4:26 PM AEST, Sachin Sant wrote: >> I am observing an intermittent crash while running powerpc/security >> selftests on a Power10 LPAR booted with powerpc/merge branch code. >>=20 >> ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 5644 at arch/powerpc/kernel/irq_64.c:278 = arch_local_irq_restore+0x254/0x260 >=20 > Okay, I guess the static branch test changes from true to false both > times it is tested and so it doesn't recover properly. It's a real = bug. > I don't know why I didn't change the static branch under stop machine, > maybe it gets into some recursive issue, that would be ideal if we = could > though. But this might be a safer minimal fix? >=20 > Thanks, > Nick > =E2=80=94 >=20 Thanks Nick. Since this failure was intermittent I ran the test 10 times with and without this patch. Without the patch failure rate was 3 out of 10 With the patch no failures were seen (0/10). I also ran the remaining selftests and observed no additional failures. Based on these tests this fixes the problem for me. - Sachin