On Monday, February 11, 2019 7:35:03 PM CET James Morse wrote: > 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@xxxxxxx> 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@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? > > > > 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 for the confirmation!
