Hi Juergen,
On 23/11/2023 05:57, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 23.11.23 00:07, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 22.11.23 04:07, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 20.11.23 03:21, osstest service owner wrote:
flight 183794 linux-linus real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/183794/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
test-arm64-arm64-examine 8 reboot fail
REGR.
vs.
183766
I'm seeing the following in the serial log:
Nov 20 00:25:41.586712 [ 0.567318] kernel BUG at
arch/arm64/xen/../../arm/xen/enlighten.c:164!
Nov 20 00:25:41.598711 [ 0.574002] Internal error: Oops - BUG:
00000000f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
The related source code lines in the kernel are:
········err = HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info,
xen_vcpu_nr(cpu),
································ &info);
········BUG_ON(err);
I suspect commit 20f3b8eafe0ba to be the culprit.
Stefano, could you please have a look?
The good news and bad news is that I cannot repro this neither with nor
without CONFIG_UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0. I looked at commit 20f3b8eafe0ba
but
I cannot see anything wrong with it. Looking at the register dump,
from:
x0 : fffffffffffffffa
I am guessing the error was -ENXIO which is returned from
map_guest_area
in Xen.
Could it be that the struct is crossing a page boundary? Or that it is
not 64-bit aligned? Do we need to do something like the following?
diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
index 9afdc4c4a5dc..5326070c5dc0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
+++ b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
@@ -484,7 +485,7 @@ static int __init xen_guest_init(void)
* for secondary CPUs as they are brought up.
* For uniformity we use VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info even on cpu0.
*/
- xen_vcpu_info = alloc_percpu(struct vcpu_info);
+ xen_vcpu_info = __alloc_percpu(struct vcpu_info, PAGE_SIZE);
if (xen_vcpu_info == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
May I suggest to use a smaller alignment? What about:
1 << fls(sizeof(struct vcpu_info) - 1)
See below
---
[PATCH] arm/xen: fix xen_vcpu_info allocation alignment
Stefano, are you going to submit the patch formally?
xen_vcpu_info is a percpu area than needs to be mapped by Xen.
Currently, it could cross a page boundary resulting in Xen being unable
to map it:
[ 0.567318] kernel BUG at
arch/arm64/xen/../../arm/xen/enlighten.c:164!
[ 0.574002] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1]
PREEMPT SMP
Fix the issue by using __alloc_percpu and requesting alignment for the
memory allocation.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@amd.com>
I am guessing we want to backport it. So should this contain a tag to
indicate the intention?
diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
index 9afdc4c4a5dc..09eb74a07dfc 100644
--- a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
+++ b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
@@ -484,7 +484,8 @@ static int __init xen_guest_init(void)
* for secondary CPUs as they are brought up.
* For uniformity we use VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info even on cpu0.
*/
- xen_vcpu_info = alloc_percpu(struct vcpu_info);
+ xen_vcpu_info = __alloc_percpu(sizeof(struct vcpu_info),
+ 1 << fls(sizeof(struct vcpu_info)
- 1));
Nit: one tab less, please (can be fixed while committing).
if (xen_vcpu_info == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com>
Juergen, looking at the x86 code, you seem to use DEFINE_PER_CPU(). So
what guarantees that this is not going to cross a page?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall