On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 7:43 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:17 AM Guillaume Tucker > <guillaume.tucker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 06/03/2019 14:05, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 10:14:47AM +0000, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > > >> On 01/03/2019 23:23, Dan Williams wrote: > > >>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:05 PM Guillaume Tucker > > >>> <guillaume.tucker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Is there an early-printk facility that can be turned on to see how far > > >>> we get in the boot? > > >> > > >> Yes, I've done that now by enabling CONFIG_DEBUG_AM33XXUART1 and > > >> earlyprintk in the command line. Here's the result, with the > > >> commit cherry picked on top of next-20190304: > > >> > > >> https://lava.collabora.co.uk/scheduler/job/1526326 > > >> > > >> [ 1.379522] ti-sysc 4804a000.target-module: sysc_flags 00000222 != 00000022 > > >> [ 1.396718] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 77bb4003 > > >> [ 1.404203] pgd = (ptrval) > > >> [ 1.406971] [77bb4003] *pgd=00000000 > > >> [ 1.410650] Internal error: Oops: 5 [#1] ARM > > >> [...] > > >> [ 1.672310] [<c07051a0>] (clk_hw_create_clk.part.21) from [<c06fea34>] (devm_clk_get+0x4c/0x80) > > >> [ 1.681232] [<c06fea34>] (devm_clk_get) from [<c064253c>] (sysc_probe+0x28c/0xde4) > > >> > > >> It's always failing at that point in the code. Also when > > >> enabling "debug" on the kernel command line, the issue goes > > >> away (exact same binaries etc..): > > >> > > >> https://lava.collabora.co.uk/scheduler/job/1526327 > > >> > > >> For the record, here's the branch I've been using: > > >> > > >> https://gitlab.collabora.com/gtucker/linux/tree/beaglebone-black-next-20190304-debug > > >> > > >> The board otherwise boots fine with next-20190304 (SMP=n), and > > >> also with the patch applied but the shuffle configs set to n. > > >> > > >>> Were there any boot *successes* on ARM with shuffling enabled? I.e. > > >>> clues about what's different about the specific memory setup for > > >>> beagle-bone-black. > > >> > > >> Looking at the KernelCI results from next-20190215, it looks like > > >> only the BeagleBone Black with SMP=n failed to boot: > > >> > > >> https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/next/branch/master/kernel/next-20190215/ > > >> > > >> Of course that's not all the ARM boards that exist out there, but > > >> it's a fairly large coverage already. > > >> > > >> As the kernel panic always seems to originate in ti-sysc.c, > > >> there's a chance it's only visible on that platform... I'm doing > > >> a KernelCI run now with my test branch to double check that, > > >> it'll take a few hours so I'll send an update later if I get > > >> anything useful out of it. > > > > Here's the result, there were a couple of failures but some were > > due to infrastructure errors (nyan-big) and I'm not sure about > > what was the problem with the meson boards: > > > > https://staging.kernelci.org/boot/all/job/gtucker/branch/kernelci-local/kernel/next-20190304-1-g4f0b547b03da/ > > > > So there's no clear indicator that the shuffle config is causing > > any issue on any other platform than the BeagleBone Black. > > > > >> In the meantime, I'm happy to try out other things with more > > >> debug configs turned on or any potential fixes someone might > > >> have. > > > > > > ARM is the only arch that sets ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL to 'y'. Maybe the > > > failure has something to do with it... > > > > > > Guillaume, can you try this patch: > > Mike, I appreciate the help! > > > > > Sure, it doesn't seem to be fixing the problem though: > > > > https://lava.collabora.co.uk/scheduler/job/1527471 > > > > I've added the patch to the same branch based on next-20190304. > > > > I guess this needs to be debugged a little further to see what > > the panic really is about. I'll see if I can spend a bit more > > time on it this week, unless there's any BeagleBone expert > > available to help or if someone has another fix to try out. > > Thanks for the help Guillaume! > > I went ahead and acquired one of these boards to see if I can can > debug this locally. Hi! Any progress on this? Might it be possible to unblock this series for v5.2 by adding a temporary "not on ARM" flag? Thanks! -- Kees Cook
