Re: Kernel versions 6.x don't boot on Amiga 4000

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


Hi Geert,

adding Mike Rapoport to the recipient list who would know whether memblock_reserve() relies on paging_init() having run.



Am 27.02.2023 um 21:26 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
Hi Finn,

FTR, here is the diff of the dmesg between good and bad:

    +initrd: 07f61166 - 08000000

This is wrong (note the 6 trailing zeros), as phys_to_virt() is not
working correctly yet (module_fixup() is called from paging_init()).

     Zone ranges:
       DMA      [mem 0x0000000007400000-0x0000007fffffffff]
       Normal   empty
     Movable zone start for each node
     Early memory node ranges
       node   0: [mem 0x0000000007400000-0x0000000007ffffff]
     Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x0000000007400000-0x0000000007ffffff]
    -initrd: 00b61166 - 00c00000

This is correct (note the 5 trailing zeros).

    -pcpu-alloc: s0 r0 d32768 u32768 alloc=1*32768
    -pcpu-alloc: [0] 0
    +Unable to handle kernel access at virtual address (ptrval)
    +Oops: 00000000
    +Modules linked in:
    +PC: [<002c11be>] memcmp+0x2c/0x5c
    +SR: 2700  SP: (ptrval)  a2: 003bd560
    +d0: 0035eb83    d1: 07fffff8    d2: 002c1192    d3: 000000e6
    +d4: 000684e8    d5: 00447000    a0: 0000000c    a1: 07fffff4
    +Process swapper (pid: 0, task=(ptrval))
    +Frame format=7 eff addr=003bbfbc ssw=0505 faddr=07fffff4
    +wb 1 stat/addr/data: 0005 00447000 07401000
    +wb 2 stat/addr/data: 0005 000000e6 000684e8
    +wb 3 stat/addr/data: 0005 003bbfb4 002c1192
    +push data: 07401000 002c7d82 07401000 074a2cf4
    +Stack from 003bbfb4:
    +002c1192 000000e6 002c7d82 00428eda 07fffff4 0035eb7f 0000000c 00447000
    +000000e6 000684e8 00447000 07401000 074bec08 07401000 074a2cf4 07fffff0
    +00440406 00000000 00428322
    +Call Trace: [<002c1192>] memcmp+0x0/0x5c
    +[<002c7d82>] _printk+0x0/0x18
    +[<00428eda>] start_kernel+0x80/0x5b0
    +[<000684e8>] pcpu_alloc+0x88/0x3b4
    +[<00428322>] _sinittext+0x322/0x9b0

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 7:30 AM Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Michael Schmitz wrote:
I wonder whether Finn's memtest patch merely exposed another MM bug

A kernel patch may be easier than a bootloader patch (even if this is a
bootloader bug) particularly if it affects multiple platforms.

A partial revert of my patch (below) will probably avoid the issue, but
with the side effect that use of memtest will clobber the initrd.

Which we can avoid, by moving the ramdisk handling inside paging_init().

The initrd and memtest features aren't usually needed together. At the
time when I needed the memtest feature I did not have confidence in the
hardeare. An initrd wasn't very useful at that point.

diff --git a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
index 3a2bb2e8fdad..92f1b9268dff 100644
--- a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
+++ b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_mm.c
@@ -326,6 +326,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
                panic("No configuration setup");

+       paging_init();
        if (m68k_ramdisk.size) {
                memblock_reserve(m68k_ramdisk.addr, m68k_ramdisk.size);

Presumably something in memblock_reserve() relies on having
called paging_init() before?

I'll do some more debugging later today...

@@ -335,8 +337,6 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)

-       paging_init();

[Index of Archives]     [Video for Linux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux S/390]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux