On 5/31/2023 1:53 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:42:45PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:Hi Conor, On 5/30/23 14:39, Conor Dooley wrote:Yo Florian, On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 01:19:55PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@xxxxxxx> commit 3522340199cc060b70f0094e3039bdb43c3f6ee1 upstream fetch_cache_info() tries to get the number of cache leaves/levels for each CPU in order to pre-allocate memory for cacheinfo struct. Allocating this memory later triggers a: 'BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context' in PREEMPT_RT kernels. If there is no cache related information available in DT or ACPI, fetch_cache_info() fails and an error message is printed: 'Early cacheinfo failed, ret = ...' Not having cache information should be a valid configuration. Remove the error message if fetch_cache_info() fails with -ENOENT. Suggested-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230404-hatred-swimmer-6fecdf33b57a@spud/ Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@xxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230414081453.244787-4-pierre.gondois@xxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>How come this now needs a backport? Did the rest of the series get backported, but not this one since it has no fixes tag?Humm, indeed, this has been present in v6.3.2 since I requested it to be included. The error that I saw this morning was not -ENOENT, but -EINVAL. With those patches applied, no more -EINVAL: cacheinfo: Allow early level detection when DT/ACPI info is missing/broken cacheinfo: Add arm64 early level initializer implementation cacheinfo: Add arch specific early level initializer cacheinfo: Add use_arch[|_cache]_info field/function I will submit those shortly unless we think they better not be in 6.3, in which case it would be nice to silence those -EINVAL errors.I prefer this option instead of back porting all the above 4 as there are some pending fixes for the issues found in those patches. I am fine if Greg is happy with the backport, so no strong rejection from my side :).
OK, so are you suggesting that we specific check for -EINVAL and -ENOENT rather than take all of the 4 above patches, if so, any preference on how to do it given the state of 6.3 stable?
-- Florian
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
