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@arm.com
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@microchip.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230404-hatred-swimmer-6fecdf33b57a@spud/ Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois pierre.gondois@arm.com Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230414081453.244787-4-pierre.gondois@arm.com Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla sudeep.holla@arm.com Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli florian.fainelli@broadcom.com
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 ?
-- Regards, Sudeep
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230508084115.1157-1-kprateek.nayak@amd.com [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230518012703.GA19967@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com