Hi Rafael, 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@xxxxxxxxxx >> >> * 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@xxxxxxx >> >> * 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? Thanks, James
