On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:11 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:42:04PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > (added llvm folks) > > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:47:43PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:53:14PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote: > > > > Hi Roman, > > > > > > > > FYI, the error/warning still remains. > > > > > > > > tree: https://github.com/ammarfaizi2/linux-block google/android/kernel/common/android12-trusty-5.10 > > > > head: 07055bfd3d810d41a38354693dfaa55a6f8c0025 > > > > commit: 0e0bfc41fdf4d79d39ebe929844cdee44f97366d [4036/5872] UPSTREAM: mm: cma: allocate cma areas bottom-up > > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-a005 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220330/202203301412.MZ7wQvQz-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config) > > > > compiler: clang version 15.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 0f6d9501cf49ce02937099350d08f20c4af86f3d) > > > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): > > > > wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross > > > > chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross > > > > # https://github.com/ammarfaizi2/linux-block/commit/0e0bfc41fdf4d79d39ebe929844cdee44f97366d > > > > git remote add ammarfaizi2-block https://github.com/ammarfaizi2/linux-block > > > > git fetch --no-tags ammarfaizi2-block google/android/kernel/common/android12-trusty-5.10 > > > > git checkout 0e0bfc41fdf4d79d39ebe929844cdee44f97366d > > > > # save the config file to linux build tree > > > > mkdir build_dir > > > > COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=x86_64 SHELL=/bin/bash > > > > > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<): > > > > > > > > >> WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text+0x4111c4): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_bottom_up() to the variable .meminit.data:memblock > > > > The function memblock_bottom_up() references > > > > the variable __meminitdata memblock. > > > > This is often because memblock_bottom_up lacks a __meminitdata > > > > annotation or the annotation of memblock is wrong. > > > > > > I guess this patch should fix it, however I fail to reproduce the original issue. > > > Maybe it's up to the specific compiler version. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From b55a8dd19f4156d7e24ec39b18ede06965ce1c4f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 14:42:12 -0700 > > > Subject: [PATCH] memblock: fix memblock_bottom_up() and > > > memblock_set_bottom_up() annotations > > > > > > memblock_bottom_up() and memblock_set_bottom_up() lack __meminitdata > > > annotations causing compiler warnings like: > > > WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text+0x4111c4): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_bottom_up() to the > > > variable .meminit.data:memblock > > > > > > Fix it by adding the missing annotation and removing the wrong > > > __meminit annotation. > > > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/linux/memblock.h | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h > > > index 50ad19662a32..536bc2fc31e6 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > > > @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ static inline void *memblock_alloc_node(phys_addr_t size, > > > /* > > > * Set the allocation direction to bottom-up or top-down. > > > */ > > > -static inline __init_memblock void memblock_set_bottom_up(bool enable) > > > +static inline __initdata_memblock void memblock_set_bottom_up(bool enable) > > > > I think putting __initdata_memlock won't help here, because there should be > > nothing wrong with __meminit function accessing __meminitdata data. > > > > My guesstimate would be that the compiler decided not to inline this and > > still dropped section attribute because of 'inline'. > > > > If this is the case we I think we should > > > > s/inline __init_memblock/__always_inline/ > > > > > { > > > memblock.bottom_up = enable; > > > } > > > @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ static inline __init_memblock void memblock_set_bottom_up(bool enable) > > > * if this is true, that said, memblock will allocate memory > > > * in bottom-up direction. > > > */ > > > -static inline __init_memblock bool memblock_bottom_up(void) > > > +static inline __initdata_memblock bool memblock_bottom_up(void) > > > { > > > return memblock.bottom_up; > > > } > > > -- > > > 2.30.2 > > > > > > > For the record, I cannot reproduce this on mainline, which has commits > 34dc2efb39a2 ("memblock: fix section mismatch warning") and a024b7c2850d > ("mm: memblock: fix section mismatch warning again"). That first commit > has the same exact warning as this report, which is against an Android > tree (android12-trusty-5.10). > > While I do not see the commit that 34dc2efb39a2 claims to fix in > android12-trusty-5.10, I do see the three commits in android12-5.10: > > a46e3fa13968 ("UPSTREAM: mm: memblock: drop __init from memblock functions to make it inline") > 5f7ec0f4c383 ("UPSTREAM: memblock: fix section mismatch warning") > 8cf5bb6946a2 ("UPSTREAM: mm: memblock: fix section mismatch warning again") It sounds like trusty just needs to pull down from (or rebase onto) android12-5.10 into android12-trusty-5.10. > > I think we can just discard this report for now, unless someone from > Google's trusty team wants to address it in that branch. > > Cheers, > Nathan -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
