[PATCH v8 00/26] APEI in_nmi() rework and SDEI wire-up

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Rafael,

On 11/02/2019 11:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:13 PM James Morse <james.morse at arm.com> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2019 11:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 7:48:36 PM CET James Morse wrote:
>>>> This series aims to wire-up arm64's fancy new software-NMI notifications
>>>> for firmware-first RAS. These need to use the estatus-queue, which is
>>>> also needed for notifications via emulated-SError. All of these
>>>> things take the 'in_nmi()' path through ghes_copy_tofrom_phys(), and
>>>> so will deadlock if they can interact, which they might.
>>
>>>> Known issues:
>>>>  * ghes_copy_tofrom_phys() already takes a lock in NMI context, this
>>>>    series moves that around, and makes sure we never try to take the
>>>>    same lock from different NMIlike notifications. Since the switch to
>>>>    queued spinlocks it looks like the kernel can only be 4 context's
>>>>    deep in spinlock, which arm64 could exceed as it doesn't have a
>>>>    single architected NMI. This would be fixed by dropping back to
>>>>    test-and-set when the nesting gets too deep:
>>>>  lore.kernel.org/r/1548215351-18896-1-git-send-email-longman at redhat.com
>>>>
>>>> * Taking an NMI from a KVM guest on arm64 with VHE leaves HCR_EL2.TGE
>>>>   clear, meaning AT and TLBI point at the guest, and PAN/UAO are squiffy.
>>>>   Only TLBI matters for APEI, and this is fixed by Julien's patch:
>>>>  http://lore.kernel.org/r/1548084825-8803-2-git-send-email-julien.thierry at arm.com
>>>>
>>>> * Linux ignores the physical address mask, meaning it doesn't call
>>>>   memory_failure() on all the affected pages if firmware or hypervisor
>>>>   believe in a different page size. Easy to hit on arm64, (easy to fix too,
>>>>   it just conflicts with this series)
>>
>>
>>>> James Morse (26):
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Don't wait to serialise with oops messages when
>>>>     panic()ing
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Remove silent flag from ghes_read_estatus()
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Switch estatus pool to use vmalloc memory
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Make hest.c manage the estatus memory pool
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Make estatus pool allocation a static size
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Don't store CPER records physical address in struct ghes
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Remove spurious GHES_TO_CLEAR check
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Don't update struct ghes' flags in read/clear estatus
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Generalise the estatus queue's notify code
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Don't allow ghes_ack_error() to mask earlier errors
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Move NOTIFY_SEA between the estatus-queue and NOTIFY_NMI
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Switch NOTIFY_SEA to use the estatus queue
>>>>   KVM: arm/arm64: Add kvm_ras.h to collect kvm specific RAS plumbing
>>>>   arm64: KVM/mm: Move SEA handling behind a single 'claim' interface
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Move locking to the notification helper
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Let the notification helper specify the fixmap slot
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Pass ghes and estatus separately to avoid a later copy
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Make GHES estatus header validation more user friendly
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Split ghes_read_estatus() to allow a peek at the CPER
>>>>     length
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Only use queued estatus entry during
>>>>     in_nmi_queue_one_entry()
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Use separate fixmap pages for arm64 NMI-like
>>>>     notifications
>>>>   mm/memory-failure: Add memory_failure_queue_kick()
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Kick the memory_failure() queue for synchronous errors
>>>>   arm64: acpi: Make apei_claim_sea() synchronise with APEI's irq work
>>>>   firmware: arm_sdei: Add ACPI GHES registration helper
>>>>   ACPI / APEI: Add support for the SDEI GHES Notification type
>>
>>
>>> I can apply patches in this series up to and including patch [21/26].
>>>
>>> Do you want me to do that?
>>
>> 9-12, 17-19, 21 are missing any review/ack tags, so I wouldn't ask, but as
>> you're offering, yes please!
>>
>>
>>> Patch [22/26] requires an ACK from mm people.
>>>
>>> Patch [23/26] has a problem that randconfig can generate a configuration
>>> in which memory_failure_queue_kick() is not present, so it is necessary
>>> to add a CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE dependency somewhere for things to
>>> work (or define an empty stub for that function in case the symbol is
>>> not set).
>>
>> Damn-it! Thanks, I was just trying to work that report out...
>>
>>
>>> If patches [24-26/26] don't depend on the previous two, I can try to
>>> apply them either, so please let me know.
>>
>> 22-24 depend on each other. Merging 24 without the other two is no-improvement,
>> so I'd like them to be kept together.
>>
>> 25-26 don't depend on 22-24, but came later so that they weren't affected by the
>> same race.
>> (note to self: describe that in the cover letter next time.)
>>
>>
>> If I apply the tag's and Boris' changes and post a tested v9 as 1-21, 25-26, is
>> that easier, or does it cause extra work?
> 
> Actually, I went ahead and applied them, since I had the 1-21 ready anyway.

> I applied the Boris' fixups manually which led to a bit of rebasing,
> so please check my linux-next branch.

Looks okay to me, and I ran your branch through the POLL/SEA/SDEI tests I've
been doing for each version so far.


Thanks!

James


[Index of Archives]     [Linux KVM]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux