On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 19:53:58 +0200 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23.07.21 16:01, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 10:50:57AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 23.07.21 10:47, Halil Pasic wrote: > >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:14:19 +0200 > >>> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Resending with the correct email of Heiko.... > >>>> > >>>> On 23.07.21 03:12, Halil Pasic wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 21:22:58 +0200 > >>>>> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> On 20.07.21 15:38, Will Deacon wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi again, folks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is version two of the patch series I posted yesterday: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210719123054.6844-1-will@xxxxxxxxxx > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The only changes since v1 are: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * Squash patches 2 and 3, amending the commit message accordingly > >>>>>>> * Add Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags from Christoph and Claire (thanks!) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'd usually leave it a bit longer between postings, but since this fixes > >>>>>>> issues with patches in -next I thought I'd spin a new version immediately. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> FWIW, I just bisected virtio-errors with secure execution mode > >>>>>> qemu-system-s390x: virtio-serial-bus: Unexpected port id 4205794771 for device virtio-serial0.0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> commit 903cd0f315fe426c6a64c54ed389de0becb663dc > >>>>>> Author: Claire Chang <tientzu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Date: Thu Jun 24 23:55:20 2021 +0800 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Unfortunately this patch series does NOT fix this issue, so it seems that even more > >>>>>> things are broken. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Any idea what else might be broken? > >>>>> > >>>>> I've done some debugging, and I think I know what is going on. Since > >>>>> that commit we need to set force_swiotlb before the swiotlb itself is > >>>>> initialized. So the patch below should fix the problem. > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------8<------------------------------------- > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:57:06 +0200 > >>>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] s390/pv: fix the forcing of the swiotlb > >>>>> > >>>>> Since commit 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for > >>>>> swiotlb data bouncing") if code sets swiotlb_force it needs to do so > >>>>> before the swiotlb is initialised. Otherwise > >>>>> io_tlb_default_mem->force_bounce will not get set to true, and devices > >>>>> that use (the default) swiotlb will not bounce despite switolb_force > >>>>> having the value of SWIOTLB_FORCE. > >>>>> > >>>>> Let us restore swiotlb functionality for PV by fulfilling this new > >>>>> requirement. > >>>> I would add: > >>>> Fixes: 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing") > >>>> as this patch breaks things > >>>> and > >>>> Fixes: 64e1f0c531d1 ("s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization") > >>>> > >>>> to make the s390 init code more robust in case people start backporting things. > >>> > >>> I agree. Do we want this backported to the stable releases that have > >>> 64e1f0c531d1 (i.e. do we need a cc stable) or should the fixes tag just > >>> serve as metadata? My guess is, it's the former. In that sense should I > >>> add the tags along with an explanation for the second fixes respin with > >>> cc stable? > >>> > >>> (BTW I don't think this formally qualifies for the stable backports, but > >>> I hope we can make an exception...) > >> > >> I think it makes sense for stable as it is cleaner to set the flags before > >> calling the init function. cc stable would be better and the right way > >> according to process, but the Fixes tag is mostly enough. > > > > But the reaso for fixing this is for code that is not yet in Linus's > > tree? > > > > I can just pick this patch up and add it in the pile I have for the next > > merge window? > > That would also work for me. I think Halil wanted to send out and v2. Sorry I didn't interpret your answer correctly. (I interpreted it like the fixes tags are enough, and those can be added by the maintainer that is going to merge the patch.) I will send out a v2 right away. Regards, Halil
