Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On 6/26/2014 8:06 PM, Tushar Behera wrote:
On 06/27/2014 01:12 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
+static unsigned int bank_cnt;
+static unsigned int max_cnt;
+
int __init arm_add_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
{
u64 aligned_start;
/*
+* Some buggy bootloaders rely on the old meminfo behavior of not adding
+* more than n banks since anything past that may contain invalid data.
+*/
+ if (bank_cnt = max_cnt) {
+ pr_crit(Max banks too low, ignoring memory at 0x%08llx\n,
+ (long long)start);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ bank_cnt++;
+
+ /*
* Ensure that start/size are aligned to a page boundary.
* Size is appropriately rounded down, start is rounded up.
*/
@@ -879,6 +894,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
mdesc = setup_machine_tags(__atags_pointer,
__machine_arch_type);
machine_desc = mdesc;
machine_name = mdesc-name;
+ max_cnt = mdesc-bank_limit;
arm_add_memory is getting called before this is being set, resulting in
none of the memory banks getting added[1].
setup_machine_fdt - early_init_dt_scan - early_init_dt_scan_memory
Would it make sense to re-introduce the config option ARM_NR_BANKS and
replace max_cnt with NR_BANKS?
[1] http://pastebin.com/MawYD7kb
I was hoping to avoid re-introducing the config option but that may be
the case if we can't make the machine_info work. I'll take a better
look tomorrow.
Thanks,
Laura
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 02:09:58AM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: On 6/26/2014 8:06 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: arm_add_memory is getting called before this is being set, resulting in none of the memory banks getting added[1]. setup_machine_fdt - early_init_dt_scan - early_init_dt_scan_memory Would it make sense to re-introduce the config option ARM_NR_BANKS and replace max_cnt with NR_BANKS? [1] http://pastebin.com/MawYD7kb I was hoping to avoid re-introducing the config option but that may be the case if we can't make the machine_info work. I'll take a better look tomorrow. The problem with the config option is that it's not single zImage friendly. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly improving, and getting towards what was expected from it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On 06/26/2014 03:27 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: On 6/25/2014 5:13 AM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/25/2014 03:59 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: On 6/24/2014 10:47 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: On 6/23/2014 11:32 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: Adding linux-samsung-soc and linux-arm-kernel ML for wider audience. On 06/19/2014 04:12 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/19/2014 03:02 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/18/2014 09:22 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/17/2014 10:23 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Sachin, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kevin's boot bot khil...@linaro.org wrote: Tree/Branch: mainline Git describe: v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618 Failed boot tests (console logs at the end) === exynos5420-arndale-octa: FAIL:arm-exynos_defconfig ste-snowball: FAIL:arm-u8500_defconfig FYI... these failures are getting more consistent on my octa board, but still not failing every time. Kevin Hi Kevin, Same here. Observation: If you soft-reset the board (through the jumpers) after getting this problem, the problem keeps repeating. But if you hard-reset the board (by removing the power cord), the problem doesn't occur during next iteration. I don't ever use the soft-reset, I only toggle the wall power. I don't ever actually remove the power cord though, I'm using a USB-controlled relay to toggle the wall power. Kevin Laura, We are getting following kernel panic [1] (not always, but quite regularly) while booting Arndale-Octa (based on Samsung's Exynos5420) board with upstream kernel. I haven't observed this issue with other boards yet. This issue is observed when I am booting with uImage + dtb (within roughly ~10 iterations). Some more information: The boot logs are provided in pastebin, okay[2] and failed[3]. In case of boot failures, I am getting a higher value for vm_total_pages (684424 in [3]). In case of successful boot on my board, it is always 521232 [2] on my board. I can confirm that reverting the Get rid of meminfo patch gets the Octa board booting reliably again for me also. In case it helps, some boot logs for failures from the last copule linux-next build/boot cycles can be seen here: http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140623/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140620/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log Sorry, I missed this yesterday. I'm going to take a look. Were all of http://pastebin.com/1iLaizuL http://pastebin.com/5tdDt4GL http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140623/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140620/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log collected on the same type of board with the same amount of DRAM? I'm seeing a different amount of total pages across all those logs. All the logs have the same lowmem limit so it seems like the upper bound was being calculated incorrectly for passing to free_area_init_node. Nothing is immediately jumping out at me so can you boot up with a small debug patch? diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b/arch/arm/mm/init.c index 659c75d..88eac1f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c +++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c @@ -187,6 +187,8 @@ static void __init zone_sizes_init(unsigned long min, unsigned long max_low, unsigned long zone_size[MAX_NR_ZONES], zhole_size[MAX_NR_ZONES]; struct memblock_region *reg; + pr_err(XXX min %lx max_low %lx max_high %lx\n, min, max_low, max_high); + __memblock_dump_all(); /* * initialise the zones. */ It would be helpful to do this across a few bootups to see if the values are actually consistent. I'll keep looking in the meantime. Thanks, Laura Thanks Laura for the pointer. In case of error, I am getting some random memblock_add() calls from drivers/of/fdt.c:early_init_dt_scan_memory. The issue seems to be from u-boot, where it is not updating the memory subnode properly. I have got a fix for the u-boot, which I am testing right now. I will update tomorrow after I do some more test. I'm concerned my change can stay as is if this is exposing an issue in u-boot. Asking people to change bootloaders rarely ends well. Can you elaborate on what u-boot is doing that would be exposing this issue? Thanks, Laura Laura, Here is my assessment of the current situation. *Bug in the u-boot* Current u-boot for Arndale-octa board has defined NR_BANKS as 12 and the core uses a global structure (gd-bd) to maintain the start and size of individual banks. Depending on the revision of SoC used on the board, the board file [1] updates the start/size for either 8 or 12 banks. In case of current revision of Arndale-Octa boards, the
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
Hi Tushar, Here is my assessment of the current situation. Thanks for digging into this and the detailed diagnosis. *Bug in the u-boot* Current u-boot for Arndale-octa board has defined NR_BANKS as 12 and the core uses a global structure (gd-bd) to maintain the start and size of individual banks. Depending on the revision of SoC used on the board, the board file [1] updates the start/size for either 8 or 12 banks. In case of current revision of Arndale-Octa boards, the board file always updates start/size for 8 banks, leaving the start/size data for remaining 4 banks uninitialized. But the u-boot core[2] updates the value of all the 12 banks, thus potentially updating invalid data for last 4 banks. The issue can be fixed by resetting the start/size for unused memory banks to 0/0.[3] *Before migration to memblock* The path for adding DRAM banks was done through [4]. For Exynos systems, NR_BANKS was defined as 8. The initial check for rejecting any banks beyond NR_BANKS was good enough for fixing this issue. The bootlog[5] (with some debug messages) shows the invalid data, both in u-boot and kernel. Please grep for NR_BANKS too low, ignoring memory in the bootlog. *After migration to memblock* Now that the memory banks are added through [6], all the memory banks are getting updated unconditionally resulting in the panic. IMO, the bug is in u-boot and we should fix that. I agree that the u-boot bug needs to be fixed, and FWIW, I updated my u-boot and haven't seen the boot failure yet after several boots with next-20140625. That being said, since it's not always feasible/practical to update u-boot, and when it comes down to it, this is still a kernel regression, we should also fix the kernel to sanity check the values coming from u-boot, like it was doing before. Could you (or Laura) come up with a way to recreate the sanity check that was detecting this problem before and ignoring those banks? Thanks, Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 07:59:19AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: I agree that the u-boot bug needs to be fixed, and FWIW, I updated my u-boot and haven't seen the boot failure yet after several boots with next-20140625. That being said, since it's not always feasible/practical to update u-boot, and when it comes down to it, this is still a kernel regression, we should also fix the kernel to sanity check the values coming from u-boot, like it was doing before. It wasn't sanity checking the values (there is some sanity checking, but the sanity checking doesn't catch this). What caught it was that the kernel was configured to only look at the first 8 of the 12 meminfo entries with ATAGs. Since we no longer have that limit, all meminfo entries are now looked at (since the kernel doesn't need the limit.) We could add back a soft-limit on the number of meminfo entries, but this has to be platform specific. Another entry to go into the mach_info structures? -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly improving, and getting towards what was expected from it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
Hi Kevin and Tushar, Am 26.06.2014 16:59, schrieb Kevin Hilman: IMO, the bug is in u-boot and we should fix that. I agree that the u-boot bug needs to be fixed, and FWIW, I updated my u-boot and haven't seen the boot failure yet after several boots with next-20140625. Could you clarify your test setup: Are you using the original InSignal SPL [1] with just your own u-boot.bin? Or do you have access to some newer Samsung-signed SPL? That being said, since it's not always feasible/practical to update u-boot, and when it comes down to it, this is still a kernel regression, we should also fix the kernel to sanity check the values coming from u-boot, like it was doing before. Sounds good. Apart from this memory issue here, I noticed that CPUs don't appear to be in HYP mode for virtualization, which had required a signed SPL update for the ODROID-XU [2]. And to me it looks as if there's no Arndale Octa support in upstream U-Boot [3], no real maintenance on the InSignal fork [4] and a policy of not cooperating with others [5]. Thanks, Andreas [1] http://forum.insignal.co.kr/viewtopic.php?f=6t=3199 [2] http://forum.odroid.com/viewtopic.php?f=64t=2778start=40#p32581 [3] http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=boards.cfg;h=947f2bc5ba2794c94b3b2cea04664f005e025f9f;hb=HEAD#l286 [4] http://git.insignal.co.kr/insignal/arndale_octa-jb_mr1.1/u-boot/ [5] http://forum.insignal.co.kr/viewtopic.php?f=40t=3613 -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On 6/26/2014 8:17 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 07:59:19AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
I agree that the u-boot bug needs to be fixed, and FWIW, I updated my
u-boot and haven't seen the boot failure yet after several boots with
next-20140625.
That being said, since it's not always feasible/practical to update
u-boot, and when it comes down to it, this is still a kernel
regression, we should also fix the kernel to sanity check the values
coming from u-boot, like it was doing before.
It wasn't sanity checking the values (there is some sanity checking,
but the sanity checking doesn't catch this).
What caught it was that the kernel was configured to only look at the
first 8 of the 12 meminfo entries with ATAGs. Since we no longer have
that limit, all meminfo entries are now looked at (since the kernel
doesn't need the limit.)
We could add back a soft-limit on the number of meminfo entries, but
this has to be platform specific. Another entry to go into the
mach_info structures?
This is the least bad option I've come up with. It brings back
early_init_dt_add_memory_arch so we can use arm_add_memory and stop
adding memory if it reaches an upper threshold. I was debating setting
the default at 12 or 8 but setting at 12 seems like it would involve the
fewest platform changes.
Thanks,
Laura
8
From 1a5265fd178fea0da432fa9d49ce28e78bd25e04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Laura Abbott lau...@codeaurora.org
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 11:23:44 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] arm: Add back maximum bank limit
Commit 1c2f87c22566cd057bc8cde10c37ae9da1a1bb76
(ARM: 8025/1: Get rid of meminfo) dropped the upper bound on
the number of memory banks that can be added as there was no
technical need in the kernel. It turns out though, some bootloaders
(specifically the arndale-octa exynos boards) may pass invalid memory
information and rely on the kernel to not parse this data. This is a
bug in the bootloader but we still need to work around this.
Re-introduce a maximum bank limit per board to prevent invalid banks
from being passed to the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott lau...@codeaurora.org
---
arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h | 8 ++--
arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c| 4
arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 16
arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c| 1 +
4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
index 060a75e..2a436ac 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
@@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ struct machine_desc {
unsigned intvideo_start;/* start of video RAM */
unsigned intvideo_end; /* end of video RAM */
+ unsigned intbank_limit; /* maximum number of memory
+* banks to add */
unsigned char reserve_lp0 :1; /* never has lp0*/
unsigned char reserve_lp1 :1; /* never has lp1*/
unsigned char reserve_lp2 :1; /* never has lp2*/
@@ -85,7 +87,8 @@ static const struct machine_desc __mach_desc_##_type \
__used\
__attribute__((__section__(.arch.info.init))) = { \
.nr = MACH_TYPE_##_type,\
- .name = _name,
+ .name = _name,\
+ .bank_limit = 12,
#define MACHINE_END\
};
@@ -95,6 +98,7 @@ static const struct machine_desc __mach_desc_##_name \
__used\
__attribute__((__section__(.arch.info.init))) = { \
.nr = ~0, \
- .name = _namestr,
+ .name = _namestr, \
+ .bank_limit = 12,
#endif
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
index e94a157..ea9ce92 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c
@@ -27,6 +27,10 @@
#include asm/mach/arch.h
#include asm/mach-types.h
+void __init early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
+{
+ arm_add_memory(base, size);
+}
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
extern struct of_cpu_method __cpu_method_of_table[];
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
index 8a16ee5..3ab94d1 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
@@ -629,11 +629,26 @@ void __init dump_machine_table(void)
/* can't use cpu_relax() here as it may require MMU setup */;
}
+static unsigned int bank_cnt;
+static unsigned int max_cnt;
+
int __init arm_add_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
{
u64 aligned_start;
/*
+* Some buggy bootloaders rely on the old meminfo behavior of not adding
+* more than n banks since anything past that may contain invalid
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On 06/27/2014 01:12 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
+static unsigned int bank_cnt;
+static unsigned int max_cnt;
+
int __init arm_add_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
{
u64 aligned_start;
/*
+ * Some buggy bootloaders rely on the old meminfo behavior of not adding
+ * more than n banks since anything past that may contain invalid data.
+ */
+ if (bank_cnt = max_cnt) {
+ pr_crit(Max banks too low, ignoring memory at 0x%08llx\n,
+ (long long)start);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ bank_cnt++;
+
+ /*
* Ensure that start/size are aligned to a page boundary.
* Size is appropriately rounded down, start is rounded up.
*/
@@ -879,6 +894,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
mdesc = setup_machine_tags(__atags_pointer,
__machine_arch_type);
machine_desc = mdesc;
machine_name = mdesc-name;
+ max_cnt = mdesc-bank_limit;
arm_add_memory is getting called before this is being set, resulting in
none of the memory banks getting added[1].
setup_machine_fdt - early_init_dt_scan - early_init_dt_scan_memory
Would it make sense to re-introduce the config option ARM_NR_BANKS and
replace max_cnt with NR_BANKS?
[1] http://pastebin.com/MawYD7kb
if (mdesc-reboot_mode != REBOOT_HARD)
reboot_mode = mdesc-reboot_mode;
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
index f38cf7c..91283fd 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
@@ -350,4 +350,5 @@ DT_MACHINE_START(EXYNOS_DT, SAMSUNG EXYNOS (Flattened
Device Tree))
.dt_compat = exynos_dt_compat,
.restart= exynos_restart,
.reserve= exynos_reserve,
+ .bank_limit = 8,
MACHINE_END
--
Tushar Behera
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On 06/26/2014 10:34 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: Hi Kevin and Tushar, Am 26.06.2014 16:59, schrieb Kevin Hilman: IMO, the bug is in u-boot and we should fix that. I agree that the u-boot bug needs to be fixed, and FWIW, I updated my u-boot and haven't seen the boot failure yet after several boots with next-20140625. Could you clarify your test setup: Are you using the original InSignal SPL [1] with just your own u-boot.bin? Or do you have access to some newer Samsung-signed SPL? The u-boot changes for Arndale-Octa was done as part of an activity within Linaro. Insignal had signed the SPL binary for us. You can extract the signed SPL binary from following hwpack[6] (tar xfz and then within u_boot folder[7]). The source code for this u-boot can be found here.[8] Just in case, commands to flash u-boot binaries are listed here.[9] That being said, since it's not always feasible/practical to update u-boot, and when it comes down to it, this is still a kernel regression, we should also fix the kernel to sanity check the values coming from u-boot, like it was doing before. Sounds good. Apart from this memory issue here, I noticed that CPUs don't appear to be in HYP mode for virtualization, which had required a signed SPL update for the ODROID-XU [2]. And to me it looks as if there's no Arndale Octa support in upstream U-Boot [3], no real maintenance on the InSignal fork [4] and a policy of not cooperating with others [5]. Adding Arndale-Octa support to upstream U-Boot was on a TODO list, but that didn't materialize because of some other reasons. Thanks, Andreas [1] http://forum.insignal.co.kr/viewtopic.php?f=6t=3199 [2] http://forum.odroid.com/viewtopic.php?f=64t=2778start=40#p32581 [3] http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=boards.cfg;h=947f2bc5ba2794c94b3b2cea04664f005e025f9f;hb=HEAD#l286 [4] http://git.insignal.co.kr/insignal/arndale_octa-jb_mr1.1/u-boot/ [5] http://forum.insignal.co.kr/viewtopic.php?f=40t=3613 [6] http://snapshots.linaro.org/kernel-hwpack/linux-linaro-tracking-ll-arndale-octa/442/hwpack_linaro-arndale-octa_20140626-442_armhf_supported.tar.gz [7] path_to_extracted_folder/u_boot/usr/lib/u-boot/arndale_octa [8] git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/samsung/u-boot.git/shortlog/refs/heads/tracking-arndale_octa [9] http://pastebin.com/pfGF2giq Thanks, -- Tushar Behera -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On 06/25/2014 03:59 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 6/24/2014 10:47 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 6/23/2014 11:32 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote:
Adding linux-samsung-soc and linux-arm-kernel ML for wider audience.
On 06/19/2014 04:12 PM, Tushar Behera wrote:
On 06/19/2014 03:02 PM, Tushar Behera wrote:
On 06/18/2014 09:22 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 06/17/2014 10:23 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Sachin,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kevin's boot bot
khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Tree/Branch: mainline
Git describe: v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618
Failed boot tests (console logs at the end)
===
exynos5420-arndale-octa: FAIL:arm-exynos_defconfig
ste-snowball: FAIL:arm-u8500_defconfig
FYI... these failures are getting more consistent on my octa board,
but still not failing every time.
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
Same here.
Observation: If you soft-reset the board (through the jumpers) after
getting this problem, the problem keeps repeating. But if you
hard-reset
the board (by removing the power cord), the problem doesn't occur
during
next iteration.
I don't ever use the soft-reset, I only toggle the wall power. I
don't ever actually remove the power cord though, I'm using a
USB-controlled relay to toggle the wall power.
Kevin
Laura,
We are getting following kernel panic [1] (not always, but quite
regularly) while booting Arndale-Octa (based on Samsung's Exynos5420)
board with upstream kernel. I haven't observed this issue with other
boards yet.
This issue is observed when I am booting with uImage + dtb (within
roughly ~10 iterations).
Some more information:
The boot logs are provided in pastebin, okay[2] and failed[3].
In case of boot failures, I am getting a higher value for vm_total_pages
(684424 in [3]). In case of successful boot on my board, it is always
521232 [2] on my board.
I can confirm that reverting the Get rid of meminfo patch gets the
Octa board booting reliably again for me also.
In case it helps, some boot logs for failures from the last copule
linux-next build/boot cycles can be seen here:
http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140623/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log
http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140620/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log
Sorry, I missed this yesterday. I'm going to take a look.
Were all of
http://pastebin.com/1iLaizuL
http://pastebin.com/5tdDt4GL
http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140623/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log
http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140620/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log
collected on the same type of board with the same amount of DRAM? I'm seeing a
different amount of total pages across all those logs. All the logs have the
same lowmem limit so it seems like the upper bound was being calculated
incorrectly for passing to free_area_init_node. Nothing is immediately jumping
out at me so can you boot up with a small debug patch?
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
index 659c75d..88eac1f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
@@ -187,6 +187,8 @@ static void __init zone_sizes_init(unsigned long min,
unsigned long max_low,
unsigned long zone_size[MAX_NR_ZONES], zhole_size[MAX_NR_ZONES];
struct memblock_region *reg;
+ pr_err(XXX min %lx max_low %lx max_high %lx\n, min, max_low,
max_high);
+ __memblock_dump_all();
/*
* initialise the zones.
*/
It would be helpful to do this across a few bootups to see if the values are
actually consistent. I'll keep looking in the meantime.
Thanks,
Laura
Thanks Laura for the pointer. In case of error, I am getting some random
memblock_add() calls from drivers/of/fdt.c:early_init_dt_scan_memory.
The issue seems to be from u-boot, where it is not updating the memory
subnode properly. I have got a fix for the u-boot, which I am testing
right now. I will update tomorrow after I do some more test.
Additional changes in kernel.
diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
index c4cddf0..bca82b3 100644
--- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
+++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
@@ -817,7 +817,7 @@ int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory(unsigned long
node, const char *uname,
endp = reg + (l / sizeof(__be32));
- pr_debug(memory scan node %s, reg size %d, data: %x %x %x %x,\n,
+ pr_err(memory scan node %s, reg size %d, data: %x %x %x %x,\n,
uname, l, reg[0], reg[1], reg[2], reg[3]);
while ((endp - reg) = (dt_root_addr_cells + dt_root_size_cells)) {
@@ -891,6 +891,7 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64
base, u64 size)
size -= phys_offset - base;
base = phys_offset;
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On 6/25/2014 5:13 AM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/25/2014 03:59 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: On 6/24/2014 10:47 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: On 6/23/2014 11:32 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: Adding linux-samsung-soc and linux-arm-kernel ML for wider audience. On 06/19/2014 04:12 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/19/2014 03:02 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/18/2014 09:22 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/17/2014 10:23 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Sachin, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kevin's boot bot khil...@linaro.org wrote: Tree/Branch: mainline Git describe: v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618 Failed boot tests (console logs at the end) === exynos5420-arndale-octa: FAIL:arm-exynos_defconfig ste-snowball: FAIL:arm-u8500_defconfig FYI... these failures are getting more consistent on my octa board, but still not failing every time. Kevin Hi Kevin, Same here. Observation: If you soft-reset the board (through the jumpers) after getting this problem, the problem keeps repeating. But if you hard-reset the board (by removing the power cord), the problem doesn't occur during next iteration. I don't ever use the soft-reset, I only toggle the wall power. I don't ever actually remove the power cord though, I'm using a USB-controlled relay to toggle the wall power. Kevin Laura, We are getting following kernel panic [1] (not always, but quite regularly) while booting Arndale-Octa (based on Samsung's Exynos5420) board with upstream kernel. I haven't observed this issue with other boards yet. This issue is observed when I am booting with uImage + dtb (within roughly ~10 iterations). Some more information: The boot logs are provided in pastebin, okay[2] and failed[3]. In case of boot failures, I am getting a higher value for vm_total_pages (684424 in [3]). In case of successful boot on my board, it is always 521232 [2] on my board. I can confirm that reverting the Get rid of meminfo patch gets the Octa board booting reliably again for me also. In case it helps, some boot logs for failures from the last copule linux-next build/boot cycles can be seen here: http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140623/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140620/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log Sorry, I missed this yesterday. I'm going to take a look. Were all of http://pastebin.com/1iLaizuL http://pastebin.com/5tdDt4GL http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140623/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140620/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log collected on the same type of board with the same amount of DRAM? I'm seeing a different amount of total pages across all those logs. All the logs have the same lowmem limit so it seems like the upper bound was being calculated incorrectly for passing to free_area_init_node. Nothing is immediately jumping out at me so can you boot up with a small debug patch? diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b/arch/arm/mm/init.c index 659c75d..88eac1f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c +++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c @@ -187,6 +187,8 @@ static void __init zone_sizes_init(unsigned long min, unsigned long max_low, unsigned long zone_size[MAX_NR_ZONES], zhole_size[MAX_NR_ZONES]; struct memblock_region *reg; + pr_err(XXX min %lx max_low %lx max_high %lx\n, min, max_low, max_high); + __memblock_dump_all(); /* * initialise the zones. */ It would be helpful to do this across a few bootups to see if the values are actually consistent. I'll keep looking in the meantime. Thanks, Laura Thanks Laura for the pointer. In case of error, I am getting some random memblock_add() calls from drivers/of/fdt.c:early_init_dt_scan_memory. The issue seems to be from u-boot, where it is not updating the memory subnode properly. I have got a fix for the u-boot, which I am testing right now. I will update tomorrow after I do some more test. I'm concerned my change can stay as is if this is exposing an issue in u-boot. Asking people to change bootloaders rarely ends well. Can you elaborate on what u-boot is doing that would be exposing this issue? Thanks, Laura -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On 6/23/2014 11:32 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: Adding linux-samsung-soc and linux-arm-kernel ML for wider audience. On 06/19/2014 04:12 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/19/2014 03:02 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/18/2014 09:22 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/17/2014 10:23 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Sachin, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kevin's boot bot khil...@linaro.org wrote: Tree/Branch: mainline Git describe: v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618 Failed boot tests (console logs at the end) === exynos5420-arndale-octa: FAIL:arm-exynos_defconfig ste-snowball: FAIL:arm-u8500_defconfig FYI... these failures are getting more consistent on my octa board, but still not failing every time. Kevin Hi Kevin, Same here. Observation: If you soft-reset the board (through the jumpers) after getting this problem, the problem keeps repeating. But if you hard-reset the board (by removing the power cord), the problem doesn't occur during next iteration. I don't ever use the soft-reset, I only toggle the wall power. I don't ever actually remove the power cord though, I'm using a USB-controlled relay to toggle the wall power. Kevin Laura, We are getting following kernel panic [1] (not always, but quite regularly) while booting Arndale-Octa (based on Samsung's Exynos5420) board with upstream kernel. I haven't observed this issue with other boards yet. This issue is observed when I am booting with uImage + dtb (within roughly ~10 iterations). Some more information: The boot logs are provided in pastebin, okay[2] and failed[3]. In case of boot failures, I am getting a higher value for vm_total_pages (684424 in [3]). In case of successful boot on my board, it is always 521232 [2] on my board. I can confirm that reverting the Get rid of meminfo patch gets the Octa board booting reliably again for me also. In case it helps, some boot logs for failures from the last copule linux-next build/boot cycles can be seen here: http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140623/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140620/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log Sorry, I missed this yesterday. I'm going to take a look. Thanks, Laura -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On 6/24/2014 10:47 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: On 6/23/2014 11:32 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: Adding linux-samsung-soc and linux-arm-kernel ML for wider audience. On 06/19/2014 04:12 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/19/2014 03:02 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/18/2014 09:22 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/17/2014 10:23 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Sachin, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kevin's boot bot khil...@linaro.org wrote: Tree/Branch: mainline Git describe: v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618 Failed boot tests (console logs at the end) === exynos5420-arndale-octa: FAIL:arm-exynos_defconfig ste-snowball: FAIL:arm-u8500_defconfig FYI... these failures are getting more consistent on my octa board, but still not failing every time. Kevin Hi Kevin, Same here. Observation: If you soft-reset the board (through the jumpers) after getting this problem, the problem keeps repeating. But if you hard-reset the board (by removing the power cord), the problem doesn't occur during next iteration. I don't ever use the soft-reset, I only toggle the wall power. I don't ever actually remove the power cord though, I'm using a USB-controlled relay to toggle the wall power. Kevin Laura, We are getting following kernel panic [1] (not always, but quite regularly) while booting Arndale-Octa (based on Samsung's Exynos5420) board with upstream kernel. I haven't observed this issue with other boards yet. This issue is observed when I am booting with uImage + dtb (within roughly ~10 iterations). Some more information: The boot logs are provided in pastebin, okay[2] and failed[3]. In case of boot failures, I am getting a higher value for vm_total_pages (684424 in [3]). In case of successful boot on my board, it is always 521232 [2] on my board. I can confirm that reverting the Get rid of meminfo patch gets the Octa board booting reliably again for me also. In case it helps, some boot logs for failures from the last copule linux-next build/boot cycles can be seen here: http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140623/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140620/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log Sorry, I missed this yesterday. I'm going to take a look. Were all of http://pastebin.com/1iLaizuL http://pastebin.com/5tdDt4GL http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140623/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140620/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log collected on the same type of board with the same amount of DRAM? I'm seeing a different amount of total pages across all those logs. All the logs have the same lowmem limit so it seems like the upper bound was being calculated incorrectly for passing to free_area_init_node. Nothing is immediately jumping out at me so can you boot up with a small debug patch? diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b/arch/arm/mm/init.c index 659c75d..88eac1f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c +++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c @@ -187,6 +187,8 @@ static void __init zone_sizes_init(unsigned long min, unsigned long max_low, unsigned long zone_size[MAX_NR_ZONES], zhole_size[MAX_NR_ZONES]; struct memblock_region *reg; + pr_err(XXX min %lx max_low %lx max_high %lx\n, min, max_low, max_high); + __memblock_dump_all(); /* * initialise the zones. */ It would be helpful to do this across a few bootups to see if the values are actually consistent. I'll keep looking in the meantime. Thanks, Laura -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
Am 23.06.2014 20:32, schrieb Kevin Hilman: On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: Adding linux-samsung-soc and linux-arm-kernel ML for wider audience. On 06/19/2014 04:12 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/19/2014 03:02 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/18/2014 09:22 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/17/2014 10:23 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Sachin, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kevin's boot bot khil...@linaro.org wrote: Tree/Branch: mainline Git describe: v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618 Failed boot tests (console logs at the end) === exynos5420-arndale-octa: FAIL:arm-exynos_defconfig ste-snowball: FAIL:arm-u8500_defconfig FYI... these failures are getting more consistent on my octa board, but still not failing every time. Kevin Hi Kevin, Same here. Observation: If you soft-reset the board (through the jumpers) after getting this problem, the problem keeps repeating. But if you hard-reset the board (by removing the power cord), the problem doesn't occur during next iteration. I don't ever use the soft-reset, I only toggle the wall power. I don't ever actually remove the power cord though, I'm using a USB-controlled relay to toggle the wall power. Kevin Laura, We are getting following kernel panic [1] (not always, but quite regularly) while booting Arndale-Octa (based on Samsung's Exynos5420) board with upstream kernel. I haven't observed this issue with other boards yet. This issue is observed when I am booting with uImage + dtb (within roughly ~10 iterations). Some more information: The boot logs are provided in pastebin, okay[2] and failed[3]. In case of boot failures, I am getting a higher value for vm_total_pages (684424 in [3]). In case of successful boot on my board, it is always 521232 [2] on my board. I can confirm that reverting the Get rid of meminfo patch gets the Octa board booting reliably again for me also. Confirming that the revert [1] fixes also the issue I was reporting for my Arndale Octa. I'm using zImage + dtb and had been resetting via J10. Regards, Andreas [1] https://github.com/afaerber/linux/commits/arndale-octa-next -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: Adding linux-samsung-soc and linux-arm-kernel ML for wider audience. On 06/19/2014 04:12 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/19/2014 03:02 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/18/2014 09:22 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/17/2014 10:23 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Sachin, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kevin's boot bot khil...@linaro.org wrote: Tree/Branch: mainline Git describe: v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618 Failed boot tests (console logs at the end) === exynos5420-arndale-octa: FAIL:arm-exynos_defconfig ste-snowball: FAIL:arm-u8500_defconfig FYI... these failures are getting more consistent on my octa board, but still not failing every time. Kevin Hi Kevin, Same here. Observation: If you soft-reset the board (through the jumpers) after getting this problem, the problem keeps repeating. But if you hard-reset the board (by removing the power cord), the problem doesn't occur during next iteration. I don't ever use the soft-reset, I only toggle the wall power. I don't ever actually remove the power cord though, I'm using a USB-controlled relay to toggle the wall power. Kevin Laura, We are getting following kernel panic [1] (not always, but quite regularly) while booting Arndale-Octa (based on Samsung's Exynos5420) board with upstream kernel. I haven't observed this issue with other boards yet. This issue is observed when I am booting with uImage + dtb (within roughly ~10 iterations). Some more information: The boot logs are provided in pastebin, okay[2] and failed[3]. In case of boot failures, I am getting a higher value for vm_total_pages (684424 in [3]). In case of successful boot on my board, it is always 521232 [2] on my board. I can confirm that reverting the Get rid of meminfo patch gets the Octa board booting reliably again for me also. In case it helps, some boot logs for failures from the last copule linux-next build/boot cycles can be seen here: http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140623/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/next/next-20140620/arm-exynos_defconfig/boot-exynos5420-arndale-octa.log Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: mainline boot: 64 boots: 62 pass, 2 fail (v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618)
Adding linux-samsung-soc and linux-arm-kernel ML for wider audience. On 06/19/2014 04:12 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/19/2014 03:02 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: On 06/18/2014 09:22 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Tushar Behera trbli...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/17/2014 10:23 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: Sachin, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kevin's boot bot khil...@linaro.org wrote: Tree/Branch: mainline Git describe: v3.16-rc1-2-gebe0618 Failed boot tests (console logs at the end) === exynos5420-arndale-octa: FAIL:arm-exynos_defconfig ste-snowball: FAIL:arm-u8500_defconfig FYI... these failures are getting more consistent on my octa board, but still not failing every time. Kevin Hi Kevin, Same here. Observation: If you soft-reset the board (through the jumpers) after getting this problem, the problem keeps repeating. But if you hard-reset the board (by removing the power cord), the problem doesn't occur during next iteration. I don't ever use the soft-reset, I only toggle the wall power. I don't ever actually remove the power cord though, I'm using a USB-controlled relay to toggle the wall power. Kevin Laura, We are getting following kernel panic [1] (not always, but quite regularly) while booting Arndale-Octa (based on Samsung's Exynos5420) board with upstream kernel. I haven't observed this issue with other boards yet. This issue is observed when I am booting with uImage + dtb (within roughly ~10 iterations). Some more information: The boot logs are provided in pastebin, okay[2] and failed[3]. In case of boot failures, I am getting a higher value for vm_total_pages (684424 in [3]). In case of successful boot on my board, it is always 521232 [2] on my board. [2] http://pastebin.com/1iLaizuL [3] http://pastebin.com/5tdDt4GL There is no issue when I am booting appended zImage (zImage+dtb). I tried running it over 200 cycles, but without any failure. 'git bisect' points to this commit. commit 1c2f87c22566 ARM: 8025/1: Get rid of meminfo Reverting this commit on top of v3.16-rc1-17-ge99cfa2, I tested for around 100 iterations of booting with uImage+dtb, without any failure. [1] Kernel log Unhandled fault: external abort on non-linefetch (0x008) at 0xffc0 Internal error: : 8 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 1136 Comm: kworker/u16:0 Not tainted 3.15.0-rc1-00027-g1c8c3cf-dirty #5 task: ed0f5800 ti: eda52000 task.ti: eda52000 PC is at __copy_to_user_std+0x4c/0x3a8 LR is at copy_page_to_iter+0xb0/0x26c pc : [c01b858c]lr : [c00982c0]psr: 6113 sp : eda53de4 ip : fp : ee103040 r10: ed9fb700 r9 : 0080 r8 : eda53eb8 r7 : ffc0 r6 : r5 : 0080 r4 : eda53e78 r3 : r2 : r1 : ffc0 r0 : ed9fb700 Flags: nZCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 ISA ARM Segment kernel Control: 10c5387d Table: 2000406a DAC: 0015 Process kworker/u16:0 (pid: 1136, stack limit = 0xeda52240) -- Tushar Behera -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
