On 10.03.23 11:20, Karol Herbst wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:26 AM Chris Clayton <chris2553@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Is it likely that this fix will be sumbmitted to mainline during the ongoing 6.3 development cycle? >> > > yes, it's already pushed to drm-misc-fixed, which then will go into > the current devel cycle. I just don't know when it's the next time it > will be pushed upwards, but it should get there eventually. FWIW, the fix landed now as 1b9b4f922f96 ; sadly without a Link: tag to the report, hence I have to mark this manually as resolved: #regzbot fix: 1b9b4f922f96108da3bb5d87b2d603f5dfbc5650 > And > because it also contains a Fixes tag it will be backported to older > branches as well. FWIW, nope, that's not enough you have to tag those explicitly to ensure backporting, as explained in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst Greg points that out every few weeks, recently here for example: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y6BWPo9S9QbnsAx6@xxxxxxxxx/ Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) -- Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page. >> Chris >> >> On 20/02/2023 22:16, Ben Skeggs wrote: >>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 at 21:27, Karol Herbst <kherbst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:51 AM Chris Clayton <chris2553@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 20/02/2023 05:35, Ben Skeggs wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 at 04:55, Chris Clayton <chris2553@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18/02/2023 15:19, Chris Clayton wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18/02/2023 12:25, Karol Herbst wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 1:22 PM Chris Clayton <chris2553@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 15/02/2023 11:09, Karol Herbst wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:36 AM Linux regression tracking #update >>>>>>>>>>> (Thorsten Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 13.02.23 10:14, Chris Clayton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/02/2023 02:57, Dave Airlie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 at 00:43, Chris Clayton <chris2553@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/02/2023 19:33, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10.02.23 20:01, Karol Herbst wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 7:35 PM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08.02.23 09:48, Chris Clayton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm assuming that we are not going to see a fix for this regression before 6.2 is released. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, looks like it. That's unfortunate, but happens. But there is still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to fix it and there is one thing I wonder: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did any of the nouveau developers look at the netconsole captures Chris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted more than a week ago to check if they somehow help to track down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the root of this problem? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did now and I can't spot anything. I think at this point it would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to dump the active tasks/threads via sqsrq keys to see if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any is in a weird state preventing the machine from shutting down. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thx for looking into it! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, thanks Karol. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attached is the output from dmesg when this block of code: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /bin/mount /dev/sda7 /mnt/sda7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /bin/mountpoint /proc || /bin/mount /proc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /bin/dmesg -w > /mnt/sda7/sysrq.dmesg.log & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /bin/echo t > /proc/sysrq-trigger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /bin/sleep 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /bin/sync >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /bin/sleep 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill $(pidof dmesg) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /bin/umount /mnt/sda7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is executed immediately before /sbin/reboot is called as the final step of rebooting my system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this is what you were looking for, but if not, please let me know what you need >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Dave. [...] >>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, in case anyone strands here in the archives: the msg was >>>>>>>>>>>> truncated. The full post can be found in a new thread: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e0b80506-b3cf-315b-4327-1b988d86031e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly it seems the info "With runpm=0, both reboot and poweroff work on >>>>>>>>>>>> my laptop." didn't bring us much further to a solution. :-/ I don't >>>>>>>>>>>> really like it, but for regression tracking I'm now putting this on the >>>>>>>>>>>> back-burner, as a fix is not in sight. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> #regzbot monitor: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e0b80506-b3cf-315b-4327-1b988d86031e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>>>>>>>>> #regzbot backburner: hard to debug and apparently rare >>>>>>>>>>>> #regzbot ignore-activity >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> yeah.. this bug looks a little annoying. Sadly the only Turing based >>>>>>>>>>> laptop I got doesn't work on Nouveau because of firmware related >>>>>>>>>>> issues and we probably need to get updated ones from Nvidia here :( >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But it's a bit weird that the kernel doesn't shutdown, because I don't >>>>>>>>>>> see anything in the logs which would prevent that from happening. >>>>>>>>>>> Unless it's waiting on one of the tasks to complete, but none of them >>>>>>>>>>> looked in any way nouveau related. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If somebody else has any fancy kernel debugging tips here to figure >>>>>>>>>>> out why it hangs, that would be very helpful... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think I've figured this out. It's to do with how my system is configured. I do have an initrd, but the only thing on >>>>>>>>>> it is the cpu microcode which, it is recommended, should be loaded early. The absence of the NVidia firmare from an >>>>>>>>>> initrd doesn't matter because the drivers for the hardware that need to load firmware are all built as modules, So, by >>>>>>>>>> the time the devices are configured via udev, the root partition is mounted and the drivers can get at the firmware. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've found, by turning on nouveau debug and taking a video of the screen as the system shuts down, that nouveau seems to >>>>>>>>>> be trying to run the scrubber very very late in the shutdown process. The problem is that by this time, I think the root >>>>>>>>>> partition, and thus the scrubber binary, have become inaccessible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I seem to have two choices - either make the firmware accessible on an initrd or unload the module in a shutdown script >>>>>>>>>> before the scrubber binary becomes inaccessible. The latter of these is the workaround I have implemented whilst the >>>>>>>>>> problem I reported has been under investigation. For simplicity, I think I'll promote my workaround to being the >>>>>>>>>> permanent solution. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, apologies (and thanks) to everyone whose time I have taken up with this non-bug. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well.. nouveau shouldn't prevent the system from shutting down if the >>>>>>>>> firmware file isn't available. Or at least it should print a >>>>>>>>> warning/error. Mind messing with the code a little to see if skipping >>>>>>>>> it kind of works? I probably can also come up with a patch by next >>>>>>>>> week. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, I'd love to but a quick glance at the code caused me to bump into this obscenity: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> int >>>>>>>> gm200_flcn_reset_wait_mem_scrubbing(struct nvkm_falcon *falcon) >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> nvkm_falcon_mask(falcon, 0x040, 0x00000000, 0x00000000); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if (nvkm_msec(falcon->owner->device, 10, >>>>>>>> if (!(nvkm_falcon_rd32(falcon, 0x10c) & 0x00000006)) >>>>>>>> break; >>>>>>>> ) < 0) >>>>>>>> return -ETIMEDOUT; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> return 0; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> nvkm_msec is #defined to nvkm_usec which in turn is #defined to nvkm_nsec where the loop that the break is related to >>>>>>>> appears >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think someone who knows the code needs to look at this. What I can confirm is that after a freeze, I waited for 90 >>>>>>> seconds for a timeout to occur, but it didn't. >>>>>> Hey, >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you able to try the attached patch for me please? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Ben. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Ben. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, this patch fixes the lockup on reboot and poweroff that I've been seeing on my laptop. As you would expect, >>>>> offloaded rendering is still working and the discrete GPU is being powered on and off as required. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Reported-by: Chris Clayton <chris2553@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Tested-by: Chris Clayton <chris2553@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ben, did you manage to get push rights to drm-misc by now or should I >>>> just pick the patch and push it through -fixes? >>> Feel free to pick it up! >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Ben. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> .> Chris >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr >>>>>>>>>>>> That page also explains what to do if mails like this annoy you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> #regzbot ignore-activity >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> > > >
