Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1340149 > unrolled thread

Re: Warning from AMD IOMMU performance counters

Started byLaura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
First post2016-02-23 02:40 +0100
Last post2016-02-25 18:50 +0100
Articles 5 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Warning from AMD IOMMU performance counters Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> - 2016-02-23 02:40 +0100
    Re: Warning from AMD IOMMU performance counters Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> - 2016-02-23 18:30 +0100
      Re: Warning from AMD IOMMU performance counters Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2016-02-23 19:00 +0100
        Re: Warning from AMD IOMMU performance counters Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> - 2016-02-25 16:00 +0100
          Re: Warning from AMD IOMMU performance counters Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> - 2016-02-25 18:50 +0100

#1340149 — Re: Warning from AMD IOMMU performance counters

FromLaura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Date2016-02-23 02:40 +0100
SubjectRe: Warning from AMD IOMMU performance counters
Message-ID<r5a7g-6wg-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 02/21/2016 05:52 PM, Wan Zongshun wrote:
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since about 4.4, we've been seeing reports of this warning on every boot
>> from some users:
>>
>> WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 1 at drivers/iommu/amd_iommu_init.c:2301
>> amd_iommu_pc_get_set_reg_val+0xa8/0xe0()
>> Modules linked in:
>> CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.4.2-300.fc23.x86_64 #1
>> Hardware name: Hewlett-Packard HP EliteBook 755 G2/221C, BIOS M84 Ver.
>> 01.10 10/20/2015
>>   0000000000000000 0000000026124b43 ffff88042d687d20 ffffffff813b0c9f
>>   0000000000000000 ffff88042d687d58 ffffffff810a2f12 ffff88042f014800
>>   0000000000000040 0000000000000000 ffffffff81d6c73d 0000000000000000
>> Call Trace:
>>   [<ffffffff813b0c9f>] dump_stack+0x44/0x55
>>   [<ffffffff810a2f12>] warn_slowpath_common+0x82/0xc0
>>   [<ffffffff81d6c73d>] ? memblock_find_dma_reserve+0x16a/0x16a
>>   [<ffffffff810a305a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
>>   [<ffffffff814d3f48>] amd_iommu_pc_get_set_reg_val+0xa8/0xe0
>>   [<ffffffff81dafda7>] iommu_go_to_state+0x4d6/0x1384
>>   [<ffffffff813c02ea>] ? kvasprintf+0x7a/0xa0
>>   [<ffffffff81d6c73d>] ? memblock_find_dma_reserve+0x16a/0x16a
>>   [<ffffffff81db0cbd>] amd_iommu_init+0x13/0x201
>>   [<ffffffff81d6c74f>] pci_iommu_init+0x12/0x3c
>>   [<ffffffff81002123>] do_one_initcall+0xb3/0x200
>>   [<ffffffff810c0935>] ? parse_args+0x295/0x4b0
>>   [<ffffffff81d621c8>] kernel_init_freeable+0x189/0x223
>>   [<ffffffff8178dc00>] ? rest_init+0x80/0x80
>>   [<ffffffff8178dc0e>] kernel_init+0xe/0xe0
>>   [<ffffffff81799c8f>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
>>   [<ffffffff8178dc00>] ? rest_init+0x80/0x80
>>
>> Full bugzilla https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310258
>>
>> Any idea what might be causing this spew?
>
> I also see this warning.
>
> Suravee's the one of this patch series might be fix this issue, you can try it.
>
> [PATCH V4 0/6] perf/amd/iommu: Enable multi-IOMMU support
>
>

That patch had other dependencies. I brought what I thought were enough of
them in to at least compile for the reporter to test (perf_event changes
from Borislav Petkov). Apparently the kernel doesn't boot with the series
so suspect there is an integration issue somewhere. I'm going to see if
I can more information from the reporter about what exactly went wrong
to see if I need more dependencies.

It would be nice to get a single patch which could be applied to stable.
Tainting the kernel immediately on bootup makes sorting through problems
more difficult.

Thanks,
Laura

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1340890

FromLaura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Date2016-02-23 18:30 +0100
Message-ID<r5oWB-8P-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1340149
On 02/22/2016 05:36 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 02/21/2016 05:52 PM, Wan Zongshun wrote:
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Since about 4.4, we've been seeing reports of this warning on every boot
>>> from some users:
>>>
>>> WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 1 at drivers/iommu/amd_iommu_init.c:2301
>>> amd_iommu_pc_get_set_reg_val+0xa8/0xe0()
>>> Modules linked in:
>>> CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.4.2-300.fc23.x86_64 #1
>>> Hardware name: Hewlett-Packard HP EliteBook 755 G2/221C, BIOS M84 Ver.
>>> 01.10 10/20/2015
>>>   0000000000000000 0000000026124b43 ffff88042d687d20 ffffffff813b0c9f
>>>   0000000000000000 ffff88042d687d58 ffffffff810a2f12 ffff88042f014800
>>>   0000000000000040 0000000000000000 ffffffff81d6c73d 0000000000000000
>>> Call Trace:
>>>   [<ffffffff813b0c9f>] dump_stack+0x44/0x55
>>>   [<ffffffff810a2f12>] warn_slowpath_common+0x82/0xc0
>>>   [<ffffffff81d6c73d>] ? memblock_find_dma_reserve+0x16a/0x16a
>>>   [<ffffffff810a305a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
>>>   [<ffffffff814d3f48>] amd_iommu_pc_get_set_reg_val+0xa8/0xe0
>>>   [<ffffffff81dafda7>] iommu_go_to_state+0x4d6/0x1384
>>>   [<ffffffff813c02ea>] ? kvasprintf+0x7a/0xa0
>>>   [<ffffffff81d6c73d>] ? memblock_find_dma_reserve+0x16a/0x16a
>>>   [<ffffffff81db0cbd>] amd_iommu_init+0x13/0x201
>>>   [<ffffffff81d6c74f>] pci_iommu_init+0x12/0x3c
>>>   [<ffffffff81002123>] do_one_initcall+0xb3/0x200
>>>   [<ffffffff810c0935>] ? parse_args+0x295/0x4b0
>>>   [<ffffffff81d621c8>] kernel_init_freeable+0x189/0x223
>>>   [<ffffffff8178dc00>] ? rest_init+0x80/0x80
>>>   [<ffffffff8178dc0e>] kernel_init+0xe/0xe0
>>>   [<ffffffff81799c8f>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
>>>   [<ffffffff8178dc00>] ? rest_init+0x80/0x80
>>>
>>> Full bugzilla https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310258
>>>
>>> Any idea what might be causing this spew?
>>
>> I also see this warning.
>>
>> Suravee's the one of this patch series might be fix this issue, you can try it.
>>
>> [PATCH V4 0/6] perf/amd/iommu: Enable multi-IOMMU support
>>
>>
>
> That patch had other dependencies. I brought what I thought were enough of
> them in to at least compile for the reporter to test (perf_event changes
> from Borislav Petkov). Apparently the kernel doesn't boot with the series
> so suspect there is an integration issue somewhere. I'm going to see if
> I can more information from the reporter about what exactly went wrong
> to see if I need more dependencies.
>

It was an issue with build signing on the testers machine. Once that was
fixed it was confirmed that the patches did fix the issue.
  
> It would be nice to get a single patch which could be applied to stable.
> Tainting the kernel immediately on bootup makes sorting through problems
> more difficult.
>
> Thanks,
> Laura
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1340911

FromBorislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Date2016-02-23 19:00 +0100
Message-ID<r5ppE-jj-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1340890
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:26:18AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> It was an issue with build signing on the testers machine. Once that was
> fixed it was confirmed that the patches did fix the issue.

Btw, Joerg did come up with a minimal fix today:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160223121215.GA31151@8bytes.org

in case you want to run it instead of that big patchset which is still
being reviewed...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1343223

FromJoerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Date2016-02-25 16:00 +0100
Message-ID<r65yy-5kc-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1340911
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:51:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:26:18AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > It was an issue with build signing on the testers machine. Once that was
> > fixed it was confirmed that the patches did fix the issue.
> 
> Btw, Joerg did come up with a minimal fix today:
> 
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160223121215.GA31151@8bytes.org
> 
> in case you want to run it instead of that big patchset which is still
> being reviewed...

I just queued that small fix and tagged it for stable. Suravees patches
are too intrusive for that and better suited for v4.6.


	Joerg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1343366

FromLaura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Date2016-02-25 18:50 +0100
Message-ID<r68d5-7e6-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1343223
On 02/25/2016 06:57 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:51:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:26:18AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> It was an issue with build signing on the testers machine. Once that was
>>> fixed it was confirmed that the patches did fix the issue.
>>
>> Btw, Joerg did come up with a minimal fix today:
>>
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160223121215.GA31151@8bytes.org
>>
>> in case you want to run it instead of that big patchset which is still
>> being reviewed...
>
> I just queued that small fix and tagged it for stable. Suravees patches
> are too intrusive for that and better suited for v4.6.
>
>
> 	Joerg
>

Thanks, I did end up pulling in that small fix.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web