On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > On 5/31/2023 8:43 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:28:26AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > Yes that is my preference ATM or if possible to wait until all the fixes > > are sorted for the bugs associated with above 4 commits [1] and [2]. > > I have queued [1] but waiting for response/patch on [2] and hence not yet > > bothered Greg. > > > > > if so, any preference on how to do it given the state of 6.3 stable? > > > > I don't understand what exactly do you mean ? > > Linux 6.3.y currently contains: > > cacheinfo: Check sib_leaf in cache_leaves_are_shared() > cacheinfo: Check cache properties are present in DT > arch_topology: Remove early cacheinfo error message if -ENOENT > > however my logs are full of: > > [ 0.001484] Early cacheinfo failed, ret = -22 > > reverting these 3 patches mentioned above does not eliminate the error. > > What I am asking is if we need a targeted fix for 6.3 like this: > I am fine with that. Please note Greg has now pulled the fixes I pointed. So I am fine if you want to backport the 4 patches discussed earlier as the stable will get the fixes soon which was my main concern earlier. The other issue I pointed should also be resolved soon based on [1] -- Regards, Sudeep [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230531170336.GA22753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
