* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 10:48 [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2024-01-18 11:36 ` Pavel Machek
2024-01-18 18:35 ` SeongJae Park
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2024-01-18 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 659 bytes --]
Hi!
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
CIP testing did not find any problems here:
https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/tree/linux-6.1.y
Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) <pavel@denx.de>
Best regards,
Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Erika Unter
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 10:48 [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-01-18 11:36 ` Pavel Machek
@ 2024-01-18 18:35 ` SeongJae Park
2024-01-18 19:10 ` Florian Fainelli
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: SeongJae Park @ 2024-01-18 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml, damon,
SeongJae Park
Hello,
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:48:08 +0100 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:42:49 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.74-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
This rc kernel passes DAMON functionality test[1] on my test machine.
Attaching the test results summary below. Please note that I retrieved the
kernel from linux-stable-rc tree[2].
Tested-by: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
[1] https://github.com/awslabs/damon-tests/tree/next/corr
[2] 1ffea4b3e361 ("Linux 6.1.74-rc1")
Thanks,
SJ
[...]
---
ok 1 selftests: damon: debugfs_attrs.sh
ok 2 selftests: damon: debugfs_schemes.sh
ok 3 selftests: damon: debugfs_target_ids.sh
ok 4 selftests: damon: debugfs_empty_targets.sh
ok 5 selftests: damon: debugfs_huge_count_read_write.sh
ok 6 selftests: damon: debugfs_duplicate_context_creation.sh
ok 7 selftests: damon: sysfs.sh
ok 1 selftests: damon-tests: kunit.sh
ok 2 selftests: damon-tests: huge_count_read_write.sh
ok 3 selftests: damon-tests: buffer_overflow.sh
ok 4 selftests: damon-tests: rm_contexts.sh
ok 5 selftests: damon-tests: record_null_deref.sh
ok 6 selftests: damon-tests: dbgfs_target_ids_read_before_terminate_race.sh
ok 7 selftests: damon-tests: dbgfs_target_ids_pid_leak.sh
ok 8 selftests: damon-tests: damo_tests.sh
ok 9 selftests: damon-tests: masim-record.sh
ok 10 selftests: damon-tests: build_i386.sh
ok 11 selftests: damon-tests: build_arm64.sh
ok 12 selftests: damon-tests: build_m68k.sh
ok 13 selftests: damon-tests: build_i386_idle_flag.sh
ok 14 selftests: damon-tests: build_i386_highpte.sh
ok 15 selftests: damon-tests: build_nomemcg.sh
[33m
[92mPASS [39m
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 10:48 [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-01-18 11:36 ` Pavel Machek
2024-01-18 18:35 ` SeongJae Park
@ 2024-01-18 19:10 ` Florian Fainelli
2024-01-19 3:52 ` Naresh Kamboju
` (2 more replies)
2024-01-18 20:13 ` [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Sven Joachim
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 3 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Florian Fainelli @ 2024-01-18 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable, Stefan Wiehler
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow,
conor, allen.lkml
+Stefan,
On 1/18/24 02:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:42:49 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.74-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
ARM and ARM64 builds worked fine and passed tests, however BMIPS_GENERIC
fails to build with:
arch/mips/kernel/smp.c: In function 'start_secondary':
arch/mips/kernel/smp.c:340:2: error: implicit declaration of function
'rcutree_report_cpu_starting'; did you mean 'rcu_cpu_starting'?
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
rcutree_report_cpu_starting(cpu);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rcu_cpu_starting
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
host-make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:250: arch/mips/kernel/smp.o]
Error 1
host-make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:500: arch/mips/kernel] Error 2
host-make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:500: arch/mips] Error 2
host-make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
which is caused by 7c20a4cc189eff36d5aeb586008a540d8024fbff ("mips/smp:
Call rcutree_report_cpu_starting() earlier").
It looks like rcutree_report_cpu_starting() has been introduced
448e9f34d91d1a4799fdb06a93c2c24b34b6fd9d ("rcu: Standardize explicit
CPU-hotplug calls") which is in v6.7.
For MIPS, it would like an adequate fix would be to
's/rcutree_report_cpu_starting/rcu_cpu_starting/' for the 6.1 and 6.6
branches.
Stefan, do you agree?
--
Florian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 19:10 ` Florian Fainelli
@ 2024-01-19 3:52 ` Naresh Kamboju
2024-01-19 5:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-01-19 16:07 ` Stefan Wiehler
2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Naresh Kamboju @ 2024-01-19 3:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Wiehler, Florian Fainelli, Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 00:40, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +Stefan,
>
> On 1/18/24 02:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> > There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > let me know.
> >
> > Responses should be made by Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:42:49 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >
> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.74-rc1.gz
> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> ARM and ARM64 builds worked fine and passed tests, however BMIPS_GENERIC
> fails to build with:
Following MIPS builds failed on 6.6.y and 6.1.y
but passed 6.7.y and Linux-next and mainline builds.
mips:
* build/clang-17-defconfig
* build/clang-nightly-defconfig
* build/gcc-12-allmodconfig
* build/gcc-12-cavium_octeon_defconfig
* build/gcc-12-defconfig
* build/gcc-12-malta_defconfig
* build/gcc-8-allmodconfig
* build/gcc-8-cavium_octeon_defconfig
* build/gcc-8-defconfig
* build/gcc-8-malta_defconfig
Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
>
> arch/mips/kernel/smp.c: In function 'start_secondary':
> arch/mips/kernel/smp.c:340:2: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'rcutree_report_cpu_starting'; did you mean 'rcu_cpu_starting'?
> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> rcutree_report_cpu_starting(cpu);
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> rcu_cpu_starting
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> host-make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:250: arch/mips/kernel/smp.o]
same here,
>
> which is caused by 7c20a4cc189eff36d5aeb586008a540d8024fbff ("mips/smp:
> Call rcutree_report_cpu_starting() earlier").
>
> It looks like rcutree_report_cpu_starting() has been introduced
> 448e9f34d91d1a4799fdb06a93c2c24b34b6fd9d ("rcu: Standardize explicit
> CPU-hotplug calls") which is in v6.7.
>
> For MIPS, it would like an adequate fix would be to
> 's/rcutree_report_cpu_starting/rcu_cpu_starting/' for the 6.1 and 6.6
> branches.
>
> Stefan, do you agree?
> --
> Florian
--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 19:10 ` Florian Fainelli
2024-01-19 3:52 ` Naresh Kamboju
@ 2024-01-19 5:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-01-19 16:07 ` Stefan Wiehler
2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2024-01-19 5:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Florian Fainelli
Cc: stable, Stefan Wiehler, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm,
linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:10:31AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> +Stefan,
>
> On 1/18/24 02:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> > There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > let me know.
> >
> > Responses should be made by Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:42:49 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >
> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.74-rc1.gz
> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> ARM and ARM64 builds worked fine and passed tests, however BMIPS_GENERIC
> fails to build with:
>
> arch/mips/kernel/smp.c: In function 'start_secondary':
> arch/mips/kernel/smp.c:340:2: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'rcutree_report_cpu_starting'; did you mean 'rcu_cpu_starting'?
> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> rcutree_report_cpu_starting(cpu);
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> rcu_cpu_starting
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> host-make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:250: arch/mips/kernel/smp.o] Error
> 1
> host-make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:500: arch/mips/kernel] Error 2
> host-make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:500: arch/mips] Error 2
> host-make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>
> which is caused by 7c20a4cc189eff36d5aeb586008a540d8024fbff ("mips/smp: Call
> rcutree_report_cpu_starting() earlier").
>
> It looks like rcutree_report_cpu_starting() has been introduced
> 448e9f34d91d1a4799fdb06a93c2c24b34b6fd9d ("rcu: Standardize explicit
> CPU-hotplug calls") which is in v6.7.
>
> For MIPS, it would like an adequate fix would be to
> 's/rcutree_report_cpu_starting/rcu_cpu_starting/' for the 6.1 and 6.6
> branches.
>
> Stefan, do you agree?
The offending commit has been dropped from the queue, sorry, I didn't
push out a new -rc yet.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 19:10 ` Florian Fainelli
2024-01-19 3:52 ` Naresh Kamboju
2024-01-19 5:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2024-01-19 16:07 ` Stefan Wiehler
2024-01-19 16:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Wiehler @ 2024-01-19 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Florian Fainelli, Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow,
conor, allen.lkml
Hi Florian,
> It looks like rcutree_report_cpu_starting() has been introduced
> 448e9f34d91d1a4799fdb06a93c2c24b34b6fd9d ("rcu: Standardize explicit
> CPU-hotplug calls") which is in v6.7.
>
> For MIPS, it would like an adequate fix would be to
> 's/rcutree_report_cpu_starting/rcu_cpu_starting/' for the 6.1 and 6.6
> branches.
>
> Stefan, do you agree?
Yes, I agree, that is also how the patch looks like in our internal
branch based on 5.15.
Kind regards,
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-19 16:07 ` Stefan Wiehler
@ 2024-01-19 16:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-01-19 16:38 ` [PATCH] mips/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier Stefan Wiehler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2024-01-19 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Wiehler
Cc: Florian Fainelli, stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm,
linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 05:07:08PM +0100, Stefan Wiehler wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
> > It looks like rcutree_report_cpu_starting() has been introduced
> > 448e9f34d91d1a4799fdb06a93c2c24b34b6fd9d ("rcu: Standardize explicit
> > CPU-hotplug calls") which is in v6.7.
> >
> > For MIPS, it would like an adequate fix would be to
> > 's/rcutree_report_cpu_starting/rcu_cpu_starting/' for the 6.1 and 6.6
> > branches.
> >
> > Stefan, do you agree?
>
> Yes, I agree, that is also how the patch looks like in our internal branch
> based on 5.15.
Great, can someone send a working version of this patch for us to apply
for the next round of releases? It's dropped from all queues right now.
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [PATCH] mips/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier
2024-01-19 16:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2024-01-19 16:38 ` Stefan Wiehler
2024-01-20 6:38 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Wiehler @ 2024-01-19 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: Florian Fainelli, stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm,
linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml, Stefan Wiehler,
Huacai Chen, Thomas Bogendoerfer
rcu_cpu_starting() must be called before clockevents_register_device() to avoid
the following lockdep splat triggered by calling list_add() when
CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST=y:
WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
...
-----------------------------
kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3680 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
other info that might help us debug this:
RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
no locks held by swapper/1/0.
...
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8012a434>] show_stack+0x64/0x158
[<ffffffff80a93d98>] dump_stack_lvl+0x90/0xc4
[<ffffffff801c9e9c>] __lock_acquire+0x1404/0x2940
[<ffffffff801cbf3c>] lock_acquire+0x14c/0x448
[<ffffffff80aa4260>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x88
[<ffffffff8021e0c8>] clockevents_register_device+0x60/0x1e8
[<ffffffff80130ff0>] r4k_clockevent_init+0x220/0x3a0
[<ffffffff801339d0>] start_secondary+0x50/0x3b8
raw_smp_processor_id() is required in order to avoid calling into lockdep
before RCU has declared the CPU to be watched for readers.
See also commit 29368e093921 ("x86/smpboot: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier"),
commit de5d9dae150c ("s390/smp: move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier") and commit
99f070b62322 ("powerpc/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier").
Signed-off-by: Stefan Wiehler <stefan.wiehler@nokia.com>
Reviewed-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
---
arch/mips/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/smp.c b/arch/mips/kernel/smp.c
index 8fbef537fb88..81f6c4f8fbc1 100644
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/smp.c
@@ -351,10 +351,11 @@ early_initcall(mips_smp_ipi_init);
*/
asmlinkage void start_secondary(void)
{
- unsigned int cpu;
+ unsigned int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
cpu_probe();
per_cpu_trap_init(false);
+ rcu_cpu_starting(cpu);
mips_clockevent_init();
mp_ops->init_secondary();
cpu_report();
@@ -366,7 +367,6 @@ asmlinkage void start_secondary(void)
*/
calibrate_delay();
- cpu = smp_processor_id();
cpu_data[cpu].udelay_val = loops_per_jiffy;
set_cpu_sibling_map(cpu);
--
2.42.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mips/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier
2024-01-19 16:38 ` [PATCH] mips/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier Stefan Wiehler
@ 2024-01-20 6:38 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-01-21 16:52 ` Florian Fainelli
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2024-01-20 6:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Wiehler
Cc: Florian Fainelli, stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm,
linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml, Huacai Chen,
Thomas Bogendoerfer
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 05:38:11PM +0100, Stefan Wiehler wrote:
> rcu_cpu_starting() must be called before clockevents_register_device() to avoid
> the following lockdep splat triggered by calling list_add() when
> CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST=y:
>
> WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> ...
> -----------------------------
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3680 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
> no locks held by swapper/1/0.
> ...
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff8012a434>] show_stack+0x64/0x158
> [<ffffffff80a93d98>] dump_stack_lvl+0x90/0xc4
> [<ffffffff801c9e9c>] __lock_acquire+0x1404/0x2940
> [<ffffffff801cbf3c>] lock_acquire+0x14c/0x448
> [<ffffffff80aa4260>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x88
> [<ffffffff8021e0c8>] clockevents_register_device+0x60/0x1e8
> [<ffffffff80130ff0>] r4k_clockevent_init+0x220/0x3a0
> [<ffffffff801339d0>] start_secondary+0x50/0x3b8
>
> raw_smp_processor_id() is required in order to avoid calling into lockdep
> before RCU has declared the CPU to be watched for readers.
>
> See also commit 29368e093921 ("x86/smpboot: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier"),
> commit de5d9dae150c ("s390/smp: move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier") and commit
> 99f070b62322 ("powerpc/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier").
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Wiehler <stefan.wiehler@nokia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
> ---
> arch/mips/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
What is the git commit id of this change in Linus's tree? What
kernel(s) should this be applied to?
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mips/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier
2024-01-20 6:38 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2024-01-21 16:52 ` Florian Fainelli
2024-01-22 17:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Florian Fainelli @ 2024-01-21 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Stefan Wiehler
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml, Huacai Chen, Thomas Bogendoerfer
On 1/19/2024 10:38 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 05:38:11PM +0100, Stefan Wiehler wrote:
>> rcu_cpu_starting() must be called before clockevents_register_device() to avoid
>> the following lockdep splat triggered by calling list_add() when
>> CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST=y:
>>
>> WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
>> ...
>> -----------------------------
>> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3680 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>
>> RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
>> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
>> no locks held by swapper/1/0.
>> ...
>> Call Trace:
>> [<ffffffff8012a434>] show_stack+0x64/0x158
>> [<ffffffff80a93d98>] dump_stack_lvl+0x90/0xc4
>> [<ffffffff801c9e9c>] __lock_acquire+0x1404/0x2940
>> [<ffffffff801cbf3c>] lock_acquire+0x14c/0x448
>> [<ffffffff80aa4260>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x88
>> [<ffffffff8021e0c8>] clockevents_register_device+0x60/0x1e8
>> [<ffffffff80130ff0>] r4k_clockevent_init+0x220/0x3a0
>> [<ffffffff801339d0>] start_secondary+0x50/0x3b8
>>
>> raw_smp_processor_id() is required in order to avoid calling into lockdep
>> before RCU has declared the CPU to be watched for readers.
>>
>> See also commit 29368e093921 ("x86/smpboot: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier"),
>> commit de5d9dae150c ("s390/smp: move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier") and commit
>> 99f070b62322 ("powerpc/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier").
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Wiehler <stefan.wiehler@nokia.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
>> ---
>> arch/mips/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> What is the git commit id of this change in Linus's tree? What
> kernel(s) should this be applied to?
The upstream commit is 55702ec9603ebeffb15e6f7b113623fe1d8872f4
("mips/smp: Call rcutree_report_cpu_starting() earlier") and this change
from Stefan should be applied to both the 6.1 stable and 6.6 stable
branches. Thanks!
--
Florian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mips/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier
2024-01-21 16:52 ` Florian Fainelli
@ 2024-01-22 17:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2024-01-22 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Florian Fainelli
Cc: Stefan Wiehler, stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm,
linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml, Huacai Chen,
Thomas Bogendoerfer
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 08:52:55AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 1/19/2024 10:38 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 05:38:11PM +0100, Stefan Wiehler wrote:
> > > rcu_cpu_starting() must be called before clockevents_register_device() to avoid
> > > the following lockdep splat triggered by calling list_add() when
> > > CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST=y:
> > >
> > > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > > ...
> > > -----------------------------
> > > kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3680 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
> > >
> > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > >
> > > RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
> > > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
> > > no locks held by swapper/1/0.
> > > ...
> > > Call Trace:
> > > [<ffffffff8012a434>] show_stack+0x64/0x158
> > > [<ffffffff80a93d98>] dump_stack_lvl+0x90/0xc4
> > > [<ffffffff801c9e9c>] __lock_acquire+0x1404/0x2940
> > > [<ffffffff801cbf3c>] lock_acquire+0x14c/0x448
> > > [<ffffffff80aa4260>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x88
> > > [<ffffffff8021e0c8>] clockevents_register_device+0x60/0x1e8
> > > [<ffffffff80130ff0>] r4k_clockevent_init+0x220/0x3a0
> > > [<ffffffff801339d0>] start_secondary+0x50/0x3b8
> > >
> > > raw_smp_processor_id() is required in order to avoid calling into lockdep
> > > before RCU has declared the CPU to be watched for readers.
> > >
> > > See also commit 29368e093921 ("x86/smpboot: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier"),
> > > commit de5d9dae150c ("s390/smp: move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier") and commit
> > > 99f070b62322 ("powerpc/smp: Call rcu_cpu_starting() earlier").
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Wiehler <stefan.wiehler@nokia.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
> > > ---
> > > arch/mips/kernel/smp.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > What is the git commit id of this change in Linus's tree? What
> > kernel(s) should this be applied to?
>
> The upstream commit is 55702ec9603ebeffb15e6f7b113623fe1d8872f4 ("mips/smp:
> Call rcutree_report_cpu_starting() earlier") and this change from Stefan
> should be applied to both the 6.1 stable and 6.6 stable branches. Thanks!
Thanks, now queued up.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 10:48 [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-18 19:10 ` Florian Fainelli
@ 2024-01-18 20:13 ` Sven Joachim
2024-01-19 0:44 ` Shuah Khan
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Sven Joachim @ 2024-01-18 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml
On 2024-01-18 11:48 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
Builds and works fine for me on x86_64.
Tested-by: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>
Cheers,
Sven
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 10:48 [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-18 20:13 ` [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Sven Joachim
@ 2024-01-19 0:44 ` Shuah Khan
2024-01-19 1:05 ` Allen
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2024-01-19 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml, Shuah Khan
On 1/18/24 03:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:42:49 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.74-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
Compiled and booted on my test system. No dmesg regressions.
Tested-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
thanks,
-- Shuah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 10:48 [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-19 0:44 ` Shuah Khan
@ 2024-01-19 1:05 ` Allen
2024-01-19 8:59 ` Yann Sionneau
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Allen @ 2024-01-19 1:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: stable, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah,
patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:42:49 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.74-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
Compiled and booted on my x86_64 and ARM64 test systems. No errors or
regressions.
Tested-by: Allen Pais <apais@linux.microsoft.com>
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 10:48 [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-19 1:05 ` Allen
@ 2024-01-19 8:59 ` Yann Sionneau
2024-01-19 14:11 ` Jon Hunter
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Yann Sionneau @ 2024-01-19 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml
Hi Greg,
On 18/01/2024 11:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:42:49 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.74-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
I tested 6.1.74-rc1 (1ffea4b3e361) on Kalray kvx arch (not upstream yet), just to let you know everything works in our CI.
It ran on real hw (k200 and k200lp boards), on qemu as well as on our internal instruction set simulator (ISS).
Tests were run on several interfaces/drivers (usb, qsfp ethernet, eMMC, PCIe endpoint+RC, SPI, remoteproc, uart, iommu). LTP and uClibc-ng testsuites are also run without any regression.
Everything looks fine to us.
Tested-by: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@kalrayinc.com>
Thanks a lot!
--
Yann
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 10:48 [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-19 8:59 ` Yann Sionneau
@ 2024-01-19 14:11 ` Jon Hunter
2024-01-20 0:46 ` Ron Economos
2024-01-20 2:18 ` Miguel Ojeda
9 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Jon Hunter @ 2024-01-19 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux,
shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
sudipm.mukherjee, srw, rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml, linux-tegra,
stable
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:48:08 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:42:49 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.74-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
All tests passing for Tegra ...
Test results for stable-v6.1:
10 builds: 10 pass, 0 fail
26 boots: 26 pass, 0 fail
116 tests: 116 pass, 0 fail
Linux version: 6.1.74-rc1-g1ffea4b3e361
Boards tested: tegra124-jetson-tk1, tegra186-p2771-0000,
tegra194-p2972-0000, tegra194-p3509-0000+p3668-0000,
tegra20-ventana, tegra210-p2371-2180,
tegra210-p3450-0000, tegra30-cardhu-a04
Tested-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
Jon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 10:48 [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-19 14:11 ` Jon Hunter
@ 2024-01-20 0:46 ` Ron Economos
2024-01-20 2:18 ` Miguel Ojeda
9 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ron Economos @ 2024-01-20 0:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable
Cc: patches, linux-kernel, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, srw,
rwarsow, conor, allen.lkml
On 1/18/24 2:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> Responses should be made by Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:42:49 +0000.
> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>
> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v6.x/stable-review/patch-6.1.74-rc1.gz
> or in the git tree and branch at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-6.1.y
> and the diffstat can be found below.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Built and booted successfully on RISC-V RV64 (HiFive Unmatched).
Tested-by: Ron Economos <re@w6rz.net>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review
2024-01-18 10:48 [PATCH 6.1 000/100] 6.1.74-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-20 0:46 ` Ron Economos
@ 2024-01-20 2:18 ` Miguel Ojeda
9 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Miguel Ojeda @ 2024-01-20 2:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gregkh
Cc: akpm, allen.lkml, conor, f.fainelli, jonathanh, linux-kernel,
linux, lkft-triage, patches, patches, pavel, rwarsow, shuah, srw,
stable, sudipm.mukherjee, torvalds, Miguel Ojeda
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:48:08 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.74 release.
> There are 100 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
Built and QEMU-booted for Rust:
Tested-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Including checking that `--lang_exclude=rust` is passed as expected with a new-enough `pahole`.
Cheers,
Miguel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread