Skip to contentSkip to conversation

agp/intel: can't ioremap flush page - no chipset flushing

DISCUSSION Paul Bolle 4 participants 25 messages Feb 8, 2014 – Mar 11, 2014

Subsystems (2)
PCI Agpgart driver
lore
Share & tools
lore

Paul Bolle

author
#0 lore raw

0) Booting v3.14-rc1 on an (outdated) ThinkPad X41 triggers a kernel error:
pci 0000:00:02.0: can't ioremap flush page - no chipset flushing

That is this pci device:
lspci | grep 00:02.0
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics Controller (rev 03)

I can't remember seeing that error before. It is apparently printed by drivers/char/agp/intel-gtt.c. (So I've sent this message to the people touching that file between v3.13 and v3.14-rc1. No, I haven't yet pinpointed a specific commit.)

1) What am I supposed to do to make this error go away?

Paul Bolle

#1 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · Paul Bolle

0) Booting v3.14-rc1 on an (outdated) ThinkPad X41 triggers a kernel error:
pci 0000:00:02.0: can't ioremap flush page - no chipset flushing

That is this pci device:
lspci | grep 00:02.0
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics Controller (rev 03)

Quoted 6 lines

I can't remember seeing that error before. It is apparently printed by drivers/char/agp/intel-gtt.c. (So I've sent this message to the people touching that file between v3.13 and v3.14-rc1. No, I haven't yet pinpointed a specific commit.)

1) What am I supposed to do to make this error go away?

Hm, if this is really a regression between 3.13 and 3.14-rc1 then I don't see any quick candidates - relevant functions in intel-gtt.c seem unchanged.

So probably a bisect is what we need here. Note that this could also be due to resource handling changes in the driver/pci core, so you can't restrict the bisect really. But before going down this route it would be worth to check out the resource allocations of both kernels. Can you please attach /proc/iomem for both 3.13 and 3.14-rc1

Adding more mailing lists.
-Daniel

Signature · 3 lines
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
author
#2 lore raw

Daniel Vetter schreef op za 08-02-2014 om 20:59 [+0100]:

Quoted 7 lines

Hm, if this is really a regression between 3.13 and 3.14-rc1 then I don't see any quick candidates - relevant functions in intel-gtt.c seem unchanged.

So probably a bisect is what we need here. Note that this could also be due to resource handling changes in the driver/pci core, so you can't restrict the bisect really.

The last bisect on this machine took over 20 builds to pinpoint the offending commit. So that's bad news ...

Quoted 3 lines

But before going down this route it
would be worth to check out the resource allocations of both kernels. Can you please attach /proc/iomem for both 3.13 and 3.14-rc1

The diff between /proc/iomem on v3.13.2 and v3.14-rc1 is:

iomem-3.14-rc1 renamed from iomem-3.13.2 +3 -6
@@ -11,16 +11,13 @@
   000e0000-000effff : Extension ROM
   000f0000-000fffff : System ROM
 00100000-7f6dffff : System RAM
-  00400000-009af63a : Kernel code
-  009af63b-00c932ff : Kernel data
-  00d4f000-00e4dfff : Kernel bss
+  00400000-009c57bf : Kernel code
+  009c57c0-00cb6aff : Kernel data
+  00d78000-00e74fff : Kernel bss
 7f6e0000-7f6f4fff : ACPI Tables
 7f6f5000-7f6fffff : ACPI Non-volatile Storage
 7f700000-7fffffff : reserved
   7f800000-7fffffff : Graphics Stolen Memory
-80000000-801fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
-80200000-8027ffff : 0000:00:02.1
-80280000-80280fff : Intel Flush Page
 a0000000-a003ffff : 0000:00:02.0
 a0040000-a00403ff : 0000:00:1d.7
   a0040000-a00403ff : ehci_hcd

/proc/iomem for v3.13.2:
00000000-00000fff : reserved
00001000-0009efff : System RAM
0009f000-0009ffff : reserved
000a0000-000bffff : Video RAM area
000c0000-000c7fff : Video ROM
000c8000-000cbfff : pnp 00:00
000cf800-000d3fff : reserved
000cf800-000d0dff : Adapter ROM
000d1000-000d1fff : Adapter ROM
000dc000-000fffff : reserved
000e0000-000effff : Extension ROM
000f0000-000fffff : System ROM
00100000-7f6dffff : System RAM
00400000-009af63a : Kernel code
009af63b-00c932ff : Kernel data
00d4f000-00e4dfff : Kernel bss
7f6e0000-7f6f4fff : ACPI Tables
7f6f5000-7f6fffff : ACPI Non-volatile Storage
7f700000-7fffffff : reserved
7f800000-7fffffff : Graphics Stolen Memory
80000000-801fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
80200000-8027ffff : 0000:00:02.1
80280000-80280fff : Intel Flush Page
a0000000-a003ffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0040000-a00403ff : 0000:00:1d.7
a0040000-a00403ff : ehci_hcd
a0040400-a00404ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040400-a00404ff : Intel ICH6
a0040800-a00409ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040800-a00409ff : Intel ICH6
a0080000-a00fffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0100000-a01fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
a0100000-a010ffff : 0000:02:00.0

    a0100000-a010ffff : tg3
a0200000-afffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
  a0200000-a0200fff : 0000:04:00.0
    a0200000-a0200fff : yenta_socket
  a0201000-a02010ff : 0000:04:00.1
    a0201000-a02010ff : mmc0
  a0202000-a0202fff : 0000:04:02.0
    a0202000-a0202fff : ipw2200

a4000000-a7ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
c0000000-cfffffff : 0000:00:02.0
d0000000-d7ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
d0000000-d3ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
e0000000-efffffff : PCI MMCONFIG 0000 [bus 00-ff]
e0000000-efffffff : reserved

    e0000000-efffffff : pnp 00:01
f0008000-f000bfff : reserved
  f0008000-f000bfff : pnp 00:01
    f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt
      f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt

fec00000-fec0ffff : reserved
fec00000-fec003ff : IOAPIC 0
fed14000-fed19fff : reserved
fed14000-fed17fff : pnp 00:01
fed18000-fed18fff : pnp 00:01
fed19000-fed19fff : pnp 00:01
fed20000-fed8ffff : reserved
fee00000-fee00fff : Local APIC
fee00000-fee00fff : reserved
ff000000-ffffffff : reserved

/proc/iomem for v3.14-rc1:
00000000-00000fff : reserved
00001000-0009efff : System RAM
0009f000-0009ffff : reserved
000a0000-000bffff : Video RAM area
000c0000-000c7fff : Video ROM
000c8000-000cbfff : pnp 00:00
000cf800-000d3fff : reserved
000cf800-000d0dff : Adapter ROM
000d1000-000d1fff : Adapter ROM
000dc000-000fffff : reserved
000e0000-000effff : Extension ROM
000f0000-000fffff : System ROM
00100000-7f6dffff : System RAM
00400000-009c57bf : Kernel code
009c57c0-00cb6aff : Kernel data
00d78000-00e74fff : Kernel bss
7f6e0000-7f6f4fff : ACPI Tables
7f6f5000-7f6fffff : ACPI Non-volatile Storage
7f700000-7fffffff : reserved
7f800000-7fffffff : Graphics Stolen Memory
a0000000-a003ffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0040000-a00403ff : 0000:00:1d.7
a0040000-a00403ff : ehci_hcd
a0040400-a00404ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040400-a00404ff : Intel ICH6
a0040800-a00409ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040800-a00409ff : Intel ICH6
a0080000-a00fffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0100000-a01fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
a0100000-a010ffff : 0000:02:00.0

    a0100000-a010ffff : tg3
a0200000-afffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
  a0200000-a0200fff : 0000:04:00.0
    a0200000-a0200fff : yenta_socket
  a0201000-a02010ff : 0000:04:00.1
    a0201000-a02010ff : mmc0
  a0202000-a0202fff : 0000:04:02.0
    a0202000-a0202fff : ipw2200

a4000000-a7ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
c0000000-cfffffff : 0000:00:02.0
d0000000-d7ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
d0000000-d3ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
e0000000-efffffff : PCI MMCONFIG 0000 [bus 00-ff]
e0000000-efffffff : reserved

    e0000000-efffffff : pnp 00:01
f0008000-f000bfff : reserved
  f0008000-f000bfff : pnp 00:01
    f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt
      f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt

fec00000-fec0ffff : reserved
fec00000-fec003ff : IOAPIC 0
fed14000-fed19fff : reserved
fed14000-fed17fff : pnp 00:01
fed18000-fed18fff : pnp 00:01
fed19000-fed19fff : pnp 00:01
fed20000-fed8ffff : reserved
fee00000-fee00fff : Local APIC
fee00000-fee00fff : reserved
ff000000-ffffffff : reserved

Thanks,

Paul Bolle

#3 lore raw
Quoted 11 lines · Paul Bolle

Daniel Vetter schreef op za 08-02-2014 om 20:59 [+0100]:

Quoted 7 lines

Hm, if this is really a regression between 3.13 and 3.14-rc1 then I don't see any quick candidates - relevant functions in intel-gtt.c seem unchanged.

So probably a bisect is what we need here. Note that this could also be due to resource handling changes in the driver/pci core, so you can't restrict the bisect really.

The last bisect on this machine took over 20 builds to pinpoint the offending commit. So that's bad news ...

Somehow we can't allocate the flush page resource any more, but I don't have any idea what. There's nothing occupying the old spot (the usual reason why resource management goes boom), so dunno why this doesn't work any more. I think bisecting is the most fruitful avenue here.
-Daniel

Quoted 159 lines
Quoted 4 lines

But before going down this route it
would be worth to check out the resource allocations of both kernels. Can you please attach /proc/iomem for both 3.13 and 3.14-rc1

The diff between /proc/iomem on v3.13.2 and v3.14-rc1 is:

iomem-3.14-rc1 2014-02-08 21:07:22.041189158 +0100 renamed from iomem-3.13.2 2014-02-08 21:14:30.214030591 +0100 +3 -6
@@ -11,16 +11,13 @@
   000e0000-000effff : Extension ROM
   000f0000-000fffff : System ROM
 00100000-7f6dffff : System RAM
-  00400000-009af63a : Kernel code
-  009af63b-00c932ff : Kernel data
-  00d4f000-00e4dfff : Kernel bss
+  00400000-009c57bf : Kernel code
+  009c57c0-00cb6aff : Kernel data
+  00d78000-00e74fff : Kernel bss
 7f6e0000-7f6f4fff : ACPI Tables
 7f6f5000-7f6fffff : ACPI Non-volatile Storage
 7f700000-7fffffff : reserved
   7f800000-7fffffff : Graphics Stolen Memory
-80000000-801fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
-80200000-8027ffff : 0000:00:02.1
-80280000-80280fff : Intel Flush Page
 a0000000-a003ffff : 0000:00:02.0
 a0040000-a00403ff : 0000:00:1d.7
   a0040000-a00403ff : ehci_hcd

/proc/iomem for v3.13.2:
00000000-00000fff : reserved
00001000-0009efff : System RAM
0009f000-0009ffff : reserved
000a0000-000bffff : Video RAM area
000c0000-000c7fff : Video ROM
000c8000-000cbfff : pnp 00:00
000cf800-000d3fff : reserved
000cf800-000d0dff : Adapter ROM
000d1000-000d1fff : Adapter ROM
000dc000-000fffff : reserved
000e0000-000effff : Extension ROM
000f0000-000fffff : System ROM
00100000-7f6dffff : System RAM
00400000-009af63a : Kernel code
009af63b-00c932ff : Kernel data
00d4f000-00e4dfff : Kernel bss
7f6e0000-7f6f4fff : ACPI Tables
7f6f5000-7f6fffff : ACPI Non-volatile Storage
7f700000-7fffffff : reserved
7f800000-7fffffff : Graphics Stolen Memory
80000000-801fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
80200000-8027ffff : 0000:00:02.1
80280000-80280fff : Intel Flush Page
a0000000-a003ffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0040000-a00403ff : 0000:00:1d.7
a0040000-a00403ff : ehci_hcd
a0040400-a00404ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040400-a00404ff : Intel ICH6
a0040800-a00409ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040800-a00409ff : Intel ICH6
a0080000-a00fffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0100000-a01fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
a0100000-a010ffff : 0000:02:00.0

    a0100000-a010ffff : tg3
a0200000-afffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
  a0200000-a0200fff : 0000:04:00.0
    a0200000-a0200fff : yenta_socket
  a0201000-a02010ff : 0000:04:00.1
    a0201000-a02010ff : mmc0
  a0202000-a0202fff : 0000:04:02.0
    a0202000-a0202fff : ipw2200

a4000000-a7ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
c0000000-cfffffff : 0000:00:02.0
d0000000-d7ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
d0000000-d3ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
e0000000-efffffff : PCI MMCONFIG 0000 [bus 00-ff]
e0000000-efffffff : reserved

    e0000000-efffffff : pnp 00:01
f0008000-f000bfff : reserved
  f0008000-f000bfff : pnp 00:01
    f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt
      f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt

fec00000-fec0ffff : reserved
fec00000-fec003ff : IOAPIC 0
fed14000-fed19fff : reserved
fed14000-fed17fff : pnp 00:01
fed18000-fed18fff : pnp 00:01
fed19000-fed19fff : pnp 00:01
fed20000-fed8ffff : reserved
fee00000-fee00fff : Local APIC
fee00000-fee00fff : reserved
ff000000-ffffffff : reserved

/proc/iomem for v3.14-rc1:
00000000-00000fff : reserved
00001000-0009efff : System RAM
0009f000-0009ffff : reserved
000a0000-000bffff : Video RAM area
000c0000-000c7fff : Video ROM
000c8000-000cbfff : pnp 00:00
000cf800-000d3fff : reserved
000cf800-000d0dff : Adapter ROM
000d1000-000d1fff : Adapter ROM
000dc000-000fffff : reserved
000e0000-000effff : Extension ROM
000f0000-000fffff : System ROM
00100000-7f6dffff : System RAM
00400000-009c57bf : Kernel code
009c57c0-00cb6aff : Kernel data
00d78000-00e74fff : Kernel bss
7f6e0000-7f6f4fff : ACPI Tables
7f6f5000-7f6fffff : ACPI Non-volatile Storage
7f700000-7fffffff : reserved
7f800000-7fffffff : Graphics Stolen Memory
a0000000-a003ffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0040000-a00403ff : 0000:00:1d.7
a0040000-a00403ff : ehci_hcd
a0040400-a00404ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040400-a00404ff : Intel ICH6
a0040800-a00409ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040800-a00409ff : Intel ICH6
a0080000-a00fffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0100000-a01fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
a0100000-a010ffff : 0000:02:00.0

    a0100000-a010ffff : tg3
a0200000-afffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
  a0200000-a0200fff : 0000:04:00.0
    a0200000-a0200fff : yenta_socket
  a0201000-a02010ff : 0000:04:00.1
    a0201000-a02010ff : mmc0
  a0202000-a0202fff : 0000:04:02.0
    a0202000-a0202fff : ipw2200

a4000000-a7ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
c0000000-cfffffff : 0000:00:02.0
d0000000-d7ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
d0000000-d3ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
e0000000-efffffff : PCI MMCONFIG 0000 [bus 00-ff]
e0000000-efffffff : reserved

    e0000000-efffffff : pnp 00:01
f0008000-f000bfff : reserved
  f0008000-f000bfff : pnp 00:01
    f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt
      f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt

fec00000-fec0ffff : reserved
fec00000-fec003ff : IOAPIC 0
fed14000-fed19fff : reserved
fed14000-fed17fff : pnp 00:01
fed18000-fed18fff : pnp 00:01
fed19000-fed19fff : pnp 00:01
fed20000-fed8ffff : reserved
fee00000-fee00fff : Local APIC
fee00000-fee00fff : reserved
ff000000-ffffffff : reserved

Thanks,

Paul Bolle

Signature · 3 lines
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
#4 lore raw
Quoted 175 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 11 lines · Paul Bolle

Daniel Vetter schreef op za 08-02-2014 om 20:59 [+0100]:

Quoted 7 lines

Hm, if this is really a regression between 3.13 and 3.14-rc1 then I don't see any quick candidates - relevant functions in intel-gtt.c seem unchanged.

So probably a bisect is what we need here. Note that this could also be due to resource handling changes in the driver/pci core, so you can't restrict the bisect really.

The last bisect on this machine took over 20 builds to pinpoint the offending commit. So that's bad news ...

Somehow we can't allocate the flush page resource any more, but I don't have any idea what. There's nothing occupying the old spot (the usual reason why resource management goes boom), so dunno why this doesn't work any more. I think bisecting is the most fruitful avenue here.
-Daniel

Quoted 154 lines
Quoted 4 lines

But before going down this route it
would be worth to check out the resource allocations of both kernels. Can you please attach /proc/iomem for both 3.13 and 3.14-rc1

The diff between /proc/iomem on v3.13.2 and v3.14-rc1 is:

iomem-3.14-rc1 2014-02-08 21:07:22.041189158 +0100 renamed from iomem-3.13.2 2014-02-08 21:14:30.214030591 +0100 +3 -6
@@ -11,16 +11,13 @@
   000e0000-000effff : Extension ROM
   000f0000-000fffff : System ROM
 00100000-7f6dffff : System RAM
-  00400000-009af63a : Kernel code
-  009af63b-00c932ff : Kernel data
-  00d4f000-00e4dfff : Kernel bss
+  00400000-009c57bf : Kernel code
+  009c57c0-00cb6aff : Kernel data
+  00d78000-00e74fff : Kernel bss
 7f6e0000-7f6f4fff : ACPI Tables
 7f6f5000-7f6fffff : ACPI Non-volatile Storage
 7f700000-7fffffff : reserved
   7f800000-7fffffff : Graphics Stolen Memory
-80000000-801fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
-80200000-8027ffff : 0000:00:02.1
-80280000-80280fff : Intel Flush Page
 a0000000-a003ffff : 0000:00:02.0
 a0040000-a00403ff : 0000:00:1d.7
   a0040000-a00403ff : ehci_hcd

/proc/iomem for v3.13.2:
00000000-00000fff : reserved
00001000-0009efff : System RAM
0009f000-0009ffff : reserved
000a0000-000bffff : Video RAM area
000c0000-000c7fff : Video ROM
000c8000-000cbfff : pnp 00:00
000cf800-000d3fff : reserved
000cf800-000d0dff : Adapter ROM
000d1000-000d1fff : Adapter ROM
000dc000-000fffff : reserved
000e0000-000effff : Extension ROM
000f0000-000fffff : System ROM
00100000-7f6dffff : System RAM
00400000-009af63a : Kernel code
009af63b-00c932ff : Kernel data
00d4f000-00e4dfff : Kernel bss
7f6e0000-7f6f4fff : ACPI Tables
7f6f5000-7f6fffff : ACPI Non-volatile Storage
7f700000-7fffffff : reserved
7f800000-7fffffff : Graphics Stolen Memory
80000000-801fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
80200000-8027ffff : 0000:00:02.1
80280000-80280fff : Intel Flush Page
a0000000-a003ffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0040000-a00403ff : 0000:00:1d.7
a0040000-a00403ff : ehci_hcd
a0040400-a00404ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040400-a00404ff : Intel ICH6
a0040800-a00409ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040800-a00409ff : Intel ICH6
a0080000-a00fffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0100000-a01fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
a0100000-a010ffff : 0000:02:00.0

    a0100000-a010ffff : tg3
a0200000-afffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
  a0200000-a0200fff : 0000:04:00.0
    a0200000-a0200fff : yenta_socket
  a0201000-a02010ff : 0000:04:00.1
    a0201000-a02010ff : mmc0
  a0202000-a0202fff : 0000:04:02.0
    a0202000-a0202fff : ipw2200

a4000000-a7ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
c0000000-cfffffff : 0000:00:02.0
d0000000-d7ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
d0000000-d3ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
e0000000-efffffff : PCI MMCONFIG 0000 [bus 00-ff]
e0000000-efffffff : reserved

    e0000000-efffffff : pnp 00:01
f0008000-f000bfff : reserved
  f0008000-f000bfff : pnp 00:01
    f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt
      f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt

fec00000-fec0ffff : reserved
fec00000-fec003ff : IOAPIC 0
fed14000-fed19fff : reserved
fed14000-fed17fff : pnp 00:01
fed18000-fed18fff : pnp 00:01
fed19000-fed19fff : pnp 00:01
fed20000-fed8ffff : reserved
fee00000-fee00fff : Local APIC
fee00000-fee00fff : reserved
ff000000-ffffffff : reserved

/proc/iomem for v3.14-rc1:
00000000-00000fff : reserved
00001000-0009efff : System RAM
0009f000-0009ffff : reserved
000a0000-000bffff : Video RAM area
000c0000-000c7fff : Video ROM
000c8000-000cbfff : pnp 00:00
000cf800-000d3fff : reserved
000cf800-000d0dff : Adapter ROM
000d1000-000d1fff : Adapter ROM
000dc000-000fffff : reserved
000e0000-000effff : Extension ROM
000f0000-000fffff : System ROM
00100000-7f6dffff : System RAM
00400000-009c57bf : Kernel code
009c57c0-00cb6aff : Kernel data
00d78000-00e74fff : Kernel bss
7f6e0000-7f6f4fff : ACPI Tables
7f6f5000-7f6fffff : ACPI Non-volatile Storage
7f700000-7fffffff : reserved
7f800000-7fffffff : Graphics Stolen Memory
a0000000-a003ffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0040000-a00403ff : 0000:00:1d.7
a0040000-a00403ff : ehci_hcd
a0040400-a00404ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040400-a00404ff : Intel ICH6
a0040800-a00409ff : 0000:00:1e.2
a0040800-a00409ff : Intel ICH6
a0080000-a00fffff : 0000:00:02.0
a0100000-a01fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
a0100000-a010ffff : 0000:02:00.0

    a0100000-a010ffff : tg3
a0200000-afffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
  a0200000-a0200fff : 0000:04:00.0
    a0200000-a0200fff : yenta_socket
  a0201000-a02010ff : 0000:04:00.1
    a0201000-a02010ff : mmc0
  a0202000-a0202fff : 0000:04:02.0
    a0202000-a0202fff : ipw2200

a4000000-a7ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
c0000000-cfffffff : 0000:00:02.0
d0000000-d7ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:04
d0000000-d3ffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:05
e0000000-efffffff : PCI MMCONFIG 0000 [bus 00-ff]
e0000000-efffffff : reserved

    e0000000-efffffff : pnp 00:01
f0008000-f000bfff : reserved
  f0008000-f000bfff : pnp 00:01
    f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt
      f000b410-f000b414 : iTCO_wdt

fec00000-fec0ffff : reserved
fec00000-fec003ff : IOAPIC 0
fed14000-fed19fff : reserved
fed14000-fed17fff : pnp 00:01
fed18000-fed18fff : pnp 00:01
fed19000-fed19fff : pnp 00:01
fed20000-fed8ffff : reserved
fee00000-fee00fff : Local APIC
fee00000-fee00fff : reserved
ff000000-ffffffff : reserved

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines

Thanks,

Paul Bolle

PCI resource allocation is undergoing some changes at the moment, it's definitely a bug if the Flush Page isn't getting allocated. I'm looking forward to hopefully getting pci_bus_alloc_resource_fit() behaviour in mainline, it will provide much better resource allocation in the 32 bit PCI address space, and prevent problems like this from cropping up.

See Yinghai Lu's for-pci-res-alloc branch.

I've been carrying the changes in my local tree, but right now the upstream PCI changes are quite extensive. He's planning on rebasing the branch soon.

author
#5 lore raw
Quoted 11 lines · Steven Newbury

PCI resource allocation is undergoing some changes at the moment, it's definitely a bug if the Flush Page isn't getting allocated. I'm looking forward to hopefully getting pci_bus_alloc_resource_fit() behaviour in mainline, it will provide much better resource allocation in the 32 bit PCI address space, and prevent problems like this from cropping up.

See Yinghai Lu's for-pci-res-alloc branch.

I've been carrying the changes in my local tree, but right now the upstream PCI changes are quite extensive. He's planning on rebasing the branch soon.

Does this mean I might be better of not bisecting this just yet? Or are these changes targeted at v3.15 (or later)?

Paul Bolle

#6 lore raw
Quoted 13 lines · Paul Bolle
Quoted 11 lines · Steven Newbury

PCI resource allocation is undergoing some changes at the moment, it's definitely a bug if the Flush Page isn't getting allocated. I'm looking forward to hopefully getting pci_bus_alloc_resource_fit() behaviour in mainline, it will provide much better resource allocation in the 32 bit PCI address space, and prevent problems like this from cropping up.

See Yinghai Lu's for-pci-res-alloc branch.

I've been carrying the changes in my local tree, but right now the upstream PCI changes are quite extensive. He's planning on rebasing the branch soon.

Quoted 6 lines

Does this mean I might be better of not bisecting this just yet? Or are these changes targeted at v3.15 (or later)?

Paul Bolle

It's an aside really for now. The bug has probably been introduced by the recent pci allocation changes so it should be easier for you to bisect, hopefully.

maintainer
#7 lore raw
In reply to Paul Bolle
Quoted 7 lines · Paul Bolle
Quoted 6 lines · Steven Newbury

PCI resource allocation is undergoing some changes at the moment, it's definitely a bug if the Flush Page isn't getting allocated. I'm looking forward to hopefully getting pci_bus_alloc_resource_fit() behaviour in mainline, it will provide much better resource allocation in the 32 bit PCI address space, and prevent problems like this from cropping up.

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines

See Yinghai Lu's for-pci-res-alloc branch.

I've been carrying the changes in my local tree, but right now the upstream PCI changes are quite extensive. He's planning on rebasing the branch soon.

Does this mean I might be better of not bisecting this just yet? Or are these changes targeted at v3.15 (or later)?

Yinghai's changes would probably be in v3.15 or later.

Can you open a kernel.org bugzilla report and attach complete dmesg logs of the working and broken kernels to it? There might be more useful resource-related messages from the PCI core.

I wouldn't start bisecting yet, but if you're in the mood, this
commit: 96702be56037 "Merge branch 'pci/resource' into next" looks like a good place to start, so you could try the pre-merge commit:
04f982beb900 "Merge branch 'pci/msi' into next". If 04f982beb900 is good, there are only about 15 commits on the pci/resource branch to look at.

Thanks for the report!

Bjorn

author
#8 lore raw

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op ma 10-02-2014 om 14:33 [-0700]:

Quoted 3 lines

Can you open a kernel.org bugzilla report and attach complete dmesg logs of the working and broken kernels to it? There might be more useful resource-related messages from the PCI core.

That took me quite a bit longer than I hoped, but I finally opened a report at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71611 .

Note that the dmesg's are identical (up to that error). Are you still interested?

Quoted 6 lines

I wouldn't start bisecting yet, but if you're in the mood, this
commit: 96702be56037 "Merge branch 'pci/resource' into next" looks like a good place to start, so you could try the pre-merge commit:
04f982beb900 "Merge branch 'pci/msi' into next". If 04f982beb900 is good, there are only about 15 commits on the pci/resource branch to look at.

I hope to do a bisect in the next few days. If that bisect pinpoints an interesting commit that might just be in time for v3.14.

Paul Bolle

maintainer
#9 lore raw
Quoted 11 lines · Paul Bolle

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op ma 10-02-2014 om 14:33 [-0700]:

Quoted 3 lines

Can you open a kernel.org bugzilla report and attach complete dmesg logs of the working and broken kernels to it? There might be more useful resource-related messages from the PCI core.

That took me quite a bit longer than I hoped, but I finally opened a report at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71611 .

Note that the dmesg's are identical (up to that error). Are you still interested?

Yep, I wouldn't mind seeing the dmesg log to compare with the /proc/iomem contents you posted earlier. Since they're identical, there might not be a clue, but you never know, and it would be really great to squash this regression before v3.14.

Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 6 lines

I wouldn't start bisecting yet, but if you're in the mood, this
commit: 96702be56037 "Merge branch 'pci/resource' into next" looks like a good place to start, so you could try the pre-merge commit:
04f982beb900 "Merge branch 'pci/msi' into next". If 04f982beb900 is good, there are only about 15 commits on the pci/resource branch to look at.

I hope to do a bisect in the next few days. If that bisect pinpoints an interesting commit that might just be in time for v3.14.

Paul Bolle

maintainer
#10 lore raw
In reply to Paul Bolle
Quoted 11 lines · Paul Bolle

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op ma 10-02-2014 om 14:33 [-0700]:

Quoted 3 lines

Can you open a kernel.org bugzilla report and attach complete dmesg logs of the working and broken kernels to it? There might be more useful resource-related messages from the PCI core.

That took me quite a bit longer than I hoped, but I finally opened a report at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71611 .

Note that the dmesg's are identical (up to that error). Are you still interested?

Thanks for attaching the dmesg log. I also attached the iomem contents you previously posted.

This is likely a tangent from the AGP issue, but I don't understand this iomem diff between v3.13.2 and v3.14-rc1:

-80000000-801fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
-80200000-8027ffff : 0000:00:02.1

The first line is a bridge window to [bus 02], and the second is an MMIO region for one of your AGP devices (00:02.0 is VGA and 00:02.1 seems to be some related device).

The bridge to [bus 02] is 00:1c.0, and your dmesg shows:

pci 0000:00:1c.0: PCI bridge to [bus 02]
pci 0000:00:1c.0: bridge window [io 0x6000-0x6fff]
pci 0000:00:1c.0: bridge window [mem 0xa0100000-0xa01fffff]

The [mem 0xa0100000-0xa01fffff] window appears in the dmesg log and in both iomem captures; that makes good sense. The 80000000-801fffff window is in only the v3.13.2 iomem, and it *should* appear in the v3.13.2 dmesg log but apparently doesn't?

Likewise, the 00:02.1 resource appears only in the v3.13.2 iomem, and it should also be mentioned in the v3.13.2 dmesg log. The v3.14-rc5 dmesg log shows an unassigned resource there:

pci 0000:00:02.1: reg 0x10: [mem 0x00000000-0x0007ffff]

and says we were unable to assign anything. But apparently v3.13.2 *did* assign something, and the dmesg log should show that.

Bjorn

author
#11 lore raw
In reply to Bjorn Helgaas

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op ma 10-02-2014 om 14:33 [-0700]:

Quoted 6 lines

I wouldn't start bisecting yet, but if you're in the mood, this
commit: 96702be56037 "Merge branch 'pci/resource' into next" looks like a good place to start, so you could try the pre-merge commit:
04f982beb900 "Merge branch 'pci/msi' into next". If 04f982beb900 is good, there are only about 15 commits on the pci/resource branch to look at.

This might end up not being relevant. And this is surely documented somewhere, but anyhow:
- what git magic returns the hashes of the 15 commits that merge commit 96702be56037 added to the tree; and
- how can I use the list of those hashes to limit the range of commits to do a git bisect?

Paul Bolle

maintainer
#12 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · Paul Bolle

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op ma 10-02-2014 om 14:33 [-0700]:

Quoted 6 lines

I wouldn't start bisecting yet, but if you're in the mood, this
commit: 96702be56037 "Merge branch 'pci/resource' into next" looks like a good place to start, so you could try the pre-merge commit:
04f982beb900 "Merge branch 'pci/msi' into next". If 04f982beb900 is good, there are only about 15 commits on the pci/resource branch to look at.

Quoted 4 lines

This might end up not being relevant. And this is surely documented somewhere, but anyhow:
- what git magic returns the hashes of the 15 commits that merge commit 96702be56037 added to the tree; and

"git show 96702be56037" gives:

    commit 96702be560374ee7e7139a34cab03554129abbb4
    Merge: 04f982beb900 d56dbf5bab8c
    ...

04f982beb900 is the previous HEAD, d56dbf5bab8c is the head of the branch merged by this commit. "git log 04f982beb900..96702be56037" shows the commits merged.

Quoted 2 lines

- how can I use the list of those hashes to limit the range of commits to do a git bisect?

I'm not a git bisect expert, but I *think* you should be able to do something like this:

    git bisect start
    git bisect bad 96702be56037
    git bisect good 04f982beb900

(assuming you've verified that 96702be56037 really *is* bad and 04f982beb900 really *is* good), and git should checkout something in the middle and you can build and test it, then use "git bisect good" or "git bisect bad" depending on the result.

Bjorn

author
#13 lore raw

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op vr 07-03-2014 om 09:55 [-0700]:

Quoted 8 lines · Paul Bolle
Quoted 4 lines

This might end up not being relevant. And this is surely documented somewhere, but anyhow:
- what git magic returns the hashes of the 15 commits that merge commit 96702be56037 added to the tree; and

"git show 96702be56037" gives:

Quoted 7 lines
    commit 96702be560374ee7e7139a34cab03554129abbb4
    Merge: 04f982beb900 d56dbf5bab8c
    ...

04f982beb900 is the previous HEAD, d56dbf5bab8c is the head of the branch merged by this commit. "git log 04f982beb900..96702be56037" shows the commits merged.

Thanks. Fairly obvious, actually. Not sure why I didn't think of this myself.

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines

- how can I use the list of those hashes to limit the range of commits to do a git bisect?

I'm not a git bisect expert, but I *think* you should be able to do something like this:

Quoted 8 lines
    git bisect start
    git bisect bad 96702be56037
    git bisect good 04f982beb900

(assuming you've verified that 96702be56037 really *is* bad and 04f982beb900 really *is* good), and git should checkout something in the middle and you can build and test it, then use "git bisect good" or "git bisect bad" depending on the result.

Makes sense. Thanks again. 04f982beb900 appears to be good. So if 96702be56037 turns out to be bad bisecting might not turn into the ordeal it usually is. (On this machine, with my workflow, bisecting an v3.x..v3.x+1-rcy range takes a few days.)

Paul Bolle

maintainer
#14 lore raw
Quoted 35 lines · Paul Bolle

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op vr 07-03-2014 om 09:55 [-0700]:

Quoted 8 lines · Paul Bolle
Quoted 4 lines

This might end up not being relevant. And this is surely documented somewhere, but anyhow:
- what git magic returns the hashes of the 15 commits that merge commit 96702be56037 added to the tree; and

"git show 96702be56037" gives:

Quoted 7 lines
    commit 96702be560374ee7e7139a34cab03554129abbb4
    Merge: 04f982beb900 d56dbf5bab8c
    ...

04f982beb900 is the previous HEAD, d56dbf5bab8c is the head of the branch merged by this commit. "git log 04f982beb900..96702be56037" shows the commits merged.

Thanks. Fairly obvious, actually. Not sure why I didn't think of this myself.

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines

- how can I use the list of those hashes to limit the range of commits to do a git bisect?

I'm not a git bisect expert, but I *think* you should be able to do something like this:

Quoted 8 lines
    git bisect start
    git bisect bad 96702be56037
    git bisect good 04f982beb900

(assuming you've verified that 96702be56037 really *is* bad and 04f982beb900 really *is* good), and git should checkout something in the middle and you can build and test it, then use "git bisect good" or "git bisect bad" depending on the result.

Quoted 4 lines

Makes sense. Thanks again. 04f982beb900 appears to be good. So if 96702be56037 turns out to be bad bisecting might not turn into the ordeal it usually is. (On this machine, with my workflow, bisecting an v3.x..v3.x+1-rcy range takes a few days.)

It seems quite possible that I broke pci_bus_alloc_resource(), which could cause an allocation failure like this.

If you have a chance to try it, here's a debug patch against v3.14-rc5. It should apply cleanly to 96702be56037. If you can try it, please attach the dmesg log to the bugzilla.

Bjorn

drivers/char/agp/intel-gtt.c +3 -0
index 5c85350f4c3d..0dbba6c7c001 100644
@@ -997,6 +997,7 @@ static int intel_alloc_chipset_flush_resource(void)
 	ret = pci_bus_alloc_resource(intel_private.bridge_dev->bus, &intel_private.ifp_resource, PAGE_SIZE,
 				     PAGE_SIZE, PCIBIOS_MIN_MEM, 0,
 				     pcibios_align_resource, intel_private.bridge_dev);
+	dev_info(&intel_private.bridge_dev->dev, "pci_bus_alloc ret %d\n", ret);
 
 	return ret;
 }

@@ -1007,6 +1008,7 @@ static void intel_i915_setup_chipset_flush(void)
 	u32 temp;
 
 	pci_read_config_dword(intel_private.bridge_dev, I915_IFPADDR, &temp);
+	dev_info(&intel_private.bridge_dev->dev, "I915_IFPADDR %#010x\n", temp);
 	if (!(temp & 0x1)) {
 		intel_alloc_chipset_flush_resource();
 		intel_private.resource_valid = 1;

@@ -1022,6 +1024,7 @@ static void intel_i915_setup_chipset_flush(void)
 		if (ret)
 			intel_private.resource_valid = 0;
 	}
+	dev_info(&intel_private.bridge_dev->dev, "ifp_resource %pR\n", &intel_private.ifp_resource);
 }
 
 static void intel_i965_g33_setup_chipset_flush(void)
drivers/pci/bus.c +11 -3
index 00660cc502c5..1c6d75ae34d9 100644
@@ -146,24 +146,31 @@ static int pci_bus_alloc_from_region(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res,
 
 	type_mask |= IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM;
 
+	dev_info(&bus->dev, "%s: alloc %pR size %#llx from bus region [%#010llx-%#010llx]\n", __func__, res, (long long) size, (long long) region->start, (long long) region->end);
 	pci_bus_for_each_resource(bus, r, i) {
 		if (!r)
 			continue;
 
 		/* type_mask must match */
-		if ((res->flags ^ r->flags) & type_mask)
+		if ((res->flags ^ r->flags) & type_mask) {
+			dev_info(&bus->dev, "%s: %pR: wrong type (%#lx %#lx mask %#x)\n", __func__, r, res->flags, r->flags, type_mask);
 			continue;
+		}
 
 		/* We cannot allocate a non-prefetching resource
 		   from a pre-fetching area */
 		if ((r->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH) &&
-		    !(res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH))
+		    !(res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH)) {
+			dev_info(&bus->dev, "%s: %pR: wrong prefetchability\n", __func__, r);
 			continue;
+		}
 
 		avail = *r;
 		pci_clip_resource_to_region(bus, &avail, region);
-		if (!resource_size(&avail))
+		if (!resource_size(&avail)) {
+			dev_info(&bus->dev, "%s: %pR: no space (avail %pR)\n", __func__, r, &avail);
 			continue;
+		}
 
 		/*
 		 * "min" is typically PCIBIOS_MIN_IO or PCIBIOS_MIN_MEM to

@@ -179,6 +186,7 @@ static int pci_bus_alloc_from_region(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res,
 		/* Ok, try it out.. */
 		ret = allocate_resource(r, res, size, min, max,
 					align, alignf, alignf_data);
+		dev_info(&bus->dev, "%s: %pR: alloc from %#llx-%#llx, ret %d\n", __func__, r, min, max, ret);
 		if (ret == 0)
 			return 0;
 	}
author
#15 lore raw
Quoted 6 lines · Bjorn Helgaas

It seems quite possible that I broke pci_bus_alloc_resource(), which could cause an allocation failure like this.

If you have a chance to try it, here's a debug patch against v3.14-rc5. It should apply cleanly to 96702be56037. If you can try it, please attach the dmesg log to the bugzilla.

That ThinkPad X41 is now building 96702be56037. Once that build is finished and tested I'll try your debug patch (on top of v3.14-rc5, see later). It might take some time to finish both builds and test boots.

Quoted 21 lines
drivers/char/agp/intel-gtt.c +2 -0
index 5c85350f4c3d..0dbba6c7c001 100644
@@ -997,6 +997,7 @@ static int intel_alloc_chipset_flush_resource(void)
 	ret = pci_bus_alloc_resource(intel_private.bridge_dev->bus, &intel_private.ifp_resource, PAGE_SIZE,
 				     PAGE_SIZE, PCIBIOS_MIN_MEM, 0,
 				     pcibios_align_resource, intel_private.bridge_dev);
+	dev_info(&intel_private.bridge_dev->dev, "pci_bus_alloc ret %d\n", ret);
 
 	return ret;
 }

@@ -1007,6 +1008,7 @@ static void intel_i915_setup_chipset_flush(void)
 	u32 temp;
 
 	pci_read_config_dword(intel_private.bridge_dev, I915_IFPADDR, &temp);
+	dev_info(&intel_private.bridge_dev->dev, "I915_IFPADDR %#010x\n", temp);
 	if (!(temp & 0x1)) {
 		intel_alloc_chipset_flush_resource();
 		intel_private.resource_valid = 1;

drivers/char/agp/intel-gtt.c static void intel_i915_setup_chipset_flush(void) · line 1030

Quoted 7 lines
drivers/char/agp/intel-gtt.c +1 -0
@@ -1022,6 +1024,7 @@ static void intel_i915_setup_chipset_flush(void)
 		if (ret)
 			intel_private.resource_valid = 0;
 	}
+	dev_info(&intel_private.bridge_dev->dev, "ifp_resource %pR\n", &intel_private.ifp_resource);
 }
 
 static void intel_i965_g33_setup_chipset_flush(void)

My v3.13 based builds don't have INTEL_GTT set! My v3.14-rcy based builds do. I have not yet investigated why that is.

(Note that the .config on that ThinkPad X41 is - in short - rebranched from the kernel .config that is shipped for Fedora 20 every time a rc1 is released.)

Quoted 40 lines
drivers/pci/bus.c +10 -3
index 00660cc502c5..1c6d75ae34d9 100644
@@ -146,24 +146,31 @@ static int pci_bus_alloc_from_region(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res,
 
 	type_mask |= IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM;
 
+	dev_info(&bus->dev, "%s: alloc %pR size %#llx from bus region [%#010llx-%#010llx]\n", __func__, res, (long long) size, (long long) region->start, (long long) region->end);
 	pci_bus_for_each_resource(bus, r, i) {
 		if (!r)
 			continue;
 
 		/* type_mask must match */
-		if ((res->flags ^ r->flags) & type_mask)
+		if ((res->flags ^ r->flags) & type_mask) {
+			dev_info(&bus->dev, "%s: %pR: wrong type (%#lx %#lx mask %#x)\n", __func__, r, res->flags, r->flags, type_mask);
 			continue;
+		}
 
 		/* We cannot allocate a non-prefetching resource
 		   from a pre-fetching area */
 		if ((r->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH) &&
-		    !(res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH))
+		    !(res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH)) {
+			dev_info(&bus->dev, "%s: %pR: wrong prefetchability\n", __func__, r);
 			continue;
+		}
 
 		avail = *r;
 		pci_clip_resource_to_region(bus, &avail, region);
-		if (!resource_size(&avail))
+		if (!resource_size(&avail)) {
+			dev_info(&bus->dev, "%s: %pR: no space (avail %pR)\n", __func__, r, &avail);
 			continue;
+		}
 
 		/*
 		 * "min" is typically PCIBIOS_MIN_IO or PCIBIOS_MIN_MEM to

drivers/pci/bus.c static int pci_bus_alloc_from_region(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res, · line 192

Quoted 7 lines
drivers/pci/bus.c +1 -0
@@ -179,6 +186,7 @@ static int pci_bus_alloc_from_region(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res,
 		/* Ok, try it out.. */
 		ret = allocate_resource(r, res, size, min, max,
 					align, alignf, alignf_data);
+		dev_info(&bus->dev, "%s: %pR: alloc from %#llx-%#llx, ret %d\n", __func__, r, min, max, ret);
 		if (ret == 0)
 			return 0;
 	}

Too bad drivers/pci/bus.o is built in by definition. If only one could build a kernel without rebuilding all modules. Or is there some way to actually do that?

Paul Bolle

maintainer
#16 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · Paul Bolle
Quoted 6 lines · Bjorn Helgaas

It seems quite possible that I broke pci_bus_alloc_resource(), which could cause an allocation failure like this.

If you have a chance to try it, here's a debug patch against v3.14-rc5. It should apply cleanly to 96702be56037. If you can try it, please attach the dmesg log to the bugzilla.

Quoted 6 lines

That ThinkPad X41 is now building 96702be56037. Once that build is finished and tested I'll try your debug patch (on top of v3.14-rc5, see later). It might take some time to finish both builds and test boots.

My v3.13 based builds don't have INTEL_GTT set! My v3.14-rcy based builds do. I have not yet investigated why that is.

I think that's OK. CONFIG_INTEL_GTT was added after v3.13 (00fe639a56b4 "drm/i915: Make AGP support optional"). It looks like in v3.13, intel-gtt.o was built if CONFIG_AGP_INTEL=y (or =m), which you probably do have (see drivers/char/agp/Makefile).

Quoted 3 lines

Too bad drivers/pci/bus.o is built in by definition. If only one could build a kernel without rebuilding all modules. Or is there some way to actually do that?

You should be able to "make bzImage" and get just the kernel. But there might be module loading issues if the modules don't exactly match the kernel. I think it's possible to turn that checking off, but I don't do it often enough to remember details.

Bjorn

maintainer
#17 lore raw
In reply to Bjorn Helgaas
Quoted 6 lines · Bjorn Helgaas

It seems quite possible that I broke pci_bus_alloc_resource(), which could cause an allocation failure like this.

If you have a chance to try it, here's a debug patch against v3.14-rc5. It should apply cleanly to 96702be56037. If you can try it, please attach the dmesg log to the bugzilla.

Paul verified that I *did* break this. More details in the bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71691

The problem is basically that I used resource_size() to figure out whether there's any available space. resource_size() is res->end - res->start + 1, so applying it to [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff] returns zero in a kernel 32-bit resource addresses, i.e., with CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT=n.

Paul, I assume you have CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT=n (which is perfectly legal); let me know if otherwise.

pci_bus 0000:00: pci_bus_alloc_from_region: alloc [mem 0x00000000]
size 0x1000 from bus region [0x00000000-0xffffffff]
pci_bus 0000:00: pci_bus_alloc_from_region: [mem
0x00000000-0xffffffff]: no space (avail [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff])

Bjorn

author
#18 lore raw

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op za 08-03-2014 om 07:12 [-0700]:

Quoted 2 lines

I assume you have CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT=n (which is perfectly legal); let me know if otherwise.

$ grep CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT /boot/config-3.14.0-0.rc5.1.local2.fc20.i686 
# CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT is not set

So, yes, CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT=n here.

Paul Bolle

maintainer
#19 lore raw

[+cc linux-pci]

Quoted 8 lines · Paul Bolle

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op za 08-03-2014 om 07:12 [-0700]:

Quoted 2 lines

I assume you have CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT=n (which is perfectly legal); let me know if otherwise.

$ grep CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT /boot/config-3.14.0-0.rc5.1.local2.fc20.i686 
# CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT is not set

So, yes, CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT=n here.

Thanks. Can you try the patch below? I think it should fix the problem.

PCI: Don't check resource_size() in pci_bus_alloc_resource()

From: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>

When resource_size_t is 32 bits wide, e.g., when CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT is not defined, resource_size() on [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff] returns 0 because (r->end - r->start + 1) overflows.

Therefore, we can't use "resource_size() == 0" to decide that allocation from this resource will fail. allocate_resource() should fail anyway if it can't satisfy the address constraints, so we should just depend on that.

A [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff] bus resource is obviously not really valid, but we do fall back to it as a default when we don't have information about host bridge apertures.

Link https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71611
Fixes f75b99d5a77d PCI: Enforce bus address limits in resource allocation
Signed-off-by Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/pci/bus.c |    2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
drivers/pci/bus.c +0 -2
index 00660cc502c5..38901665c770 100644
@@ -162,8 +162,6 @@ static int pci_bus_alloc_from_region(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res,
 
 		avail = *r;
 		pci_clip_resource_to_region(bus, &avail, region);
-		if (!resource_size(&avail))
-			continue;
 
 		/*
 		 * "min" is typically PCIBIOS_MIN_IO or PCIBIOS_MIN_MEM to
author
#20 lore raw

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op ma 10-03-2014 om 12:24 [-0600]:

Quoted 31 lines

Thanks. Can you try the patch below? I think it should fix the problem.

PCI: Don't check resource_size() in pci_bus_alloc_resource()

From: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>

When resource_size_t is 32 bits wide, e.g., when CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT is not defined, resource_size() on [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff] returns 0 because (r->end - r->start + 1) overflows.

Therefore, we can't use "resource_size() == 0" to decide that allocation from this resource will fail. allocate_resource() should fail anyway if it can't satisfy the address constraints, so we should just depend on that.

A [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff] bus resource is obviously not really valid, but we do fall back to it as a default when we don't have information about host bridge apertures.

Link https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71611
Fixes f75b99d5a77d PCI: Enforce bus address limits in resource allocation
Signed-off-by Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/pci/bus.c |    2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
drivers/pci/bus.c +0 -0
index 00660cc502c5..38901665c770 100644

drivers/pci/bus.c static int pci_bus_alloc_from_region(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res, · line 167

Quoted 8 lines
drivers/pci/bus.c +0 -2
@@ -162,8 +162,6 @@ static int pci_bus_alloc_from_region(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res,
 
 		avail = *r;
 		pci_clip_resource_to_region(bus, &avail, region);
-		if (!resource_size(&avail))
-			continue;
 
 		/*
 		 * "min" is typically PCIBIOS_MIN_IO or PCIBIOS_MIN_MEM to

I've applied your patch on top of v3.14-rc6. The boot warning is gone. And /proc/iomem once again has the lines:

    [...]
    80000000-801fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
    80200000-8027ffff : 0000:00:02.1
    80280000-80280fff : Intel Flush Page
    [...]

Which is what we want, don't we?

A bit of doubt is caused by two new boot time messages:
pnp 00:00: unknown resource type 10 in _CRS pnp 00:00: can't evaluate _CRS: 1

But I haven't yet tried v3.14-rc6 without your patch, so these might be unrelated. They're unclear to me, anyway.

Thanks,

Paul Bolle

maintainer
#21 lore raw

[+cc Rafael]

Quoted 43 lines · Paul Bolle

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op ma 10-03-2014 om 12:24 [-0600]:

Quoted 31 lines

Thanks. Can you try the patch below? I think it should fix the problem.

PCI: Don't check resource_size() in pci_bus_alloc_resource()

From: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>

When resource_size_t is 32 bits wide, e.g., when CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT is not defined, resource_size() on [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff] returns 0 because (r->end - r->start + 1) overflows.

Therefore, we can't use "resource_size() == 0" to decide that allocation from this resource will fail. allocate_resource() should fail anyway if it can't satisfy the address constraints, so we should just depend on that.

A [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff] bus resource is obviously not really valid, but we do fall back to it as a default when we don't have information about host bridge apertures.

Link https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71611
Fixes f75b99d5a77d PCI: Enforce bus address limits in resource allocation
Signed-off-by Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/pci/bus.c |    2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
drivers/pci/bus.c +0 -0
index 00660cc502c5..38901665c770 100644

drivers/pci/bus.c static int pci_bus_alloc_from_region(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res, · line 167

Quoted 8 lines
drivers/pci/bus.c +0 -2
@@ -162,8 +162,6 @@ static int pci_bus_alloc_from_region(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res,
 
              avail = *r;
              pci_clip_resource_to_region(bus, &avail, region);
-             if (!resource_size(&avail))
-                     continue;
 
              /*
               * "min" is typically PCIBIOS_MIN_IO or PCIBIOS_MIN_MEM to

I've applied your patch on top of v3.14-rc6. The boot warning is gone. And /proc/iomem once again has the lines:

Quoted 7 lines
    [...]
    80000000-801fffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
    80200000-8027ffff : 0000:00:02.1
    80280000-80280fff : Intel Flush Page
    [...]

Which is what we want, don't we?

Yep, that part looks good.

Quoted 6 lines

A bit of doubt is caused by two new boot time messages:
pnp 00:00: unknown resource type 10 in _CRS pnp 00:00: can't evaluate _CRS: 1

But I haven't yet tried v3.14-rc6 without your patch, so these might be unrelated. They're unclear to me, anyway.

Hmm, this is definitely concerning. Resource type 10 is ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32, which we do handle (unless it's length 0). And your previous dmesg logs (at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71611) don't show anything like that.

Can you attach an acpidump and the dmesg log with my patch to the bugzilla?

Bjorn

author
#22 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · Bjorn Helgaas
Quoted 6 lines · Paul Bolle

A bit of doubt is caused by two new boot time messages:
pnp 00:00: unknown resource type 10 in _CRS pnp 00:00: can't evaluate _CRS: 1

But I haven't yet tried v3.14-rc6 without your patch, so these might be unrelated. They're unclear to me, anyway.

Quoted 7 lines

Hmm, this is definitely concerning. Resource type 10 is ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32, which we do handle (unless it's length 0). And your previous dmesg logs (at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71611) don't show anything like that.

Can you attach an acpidump and the dmesg log with my patch to the bugzilla?

It's getting rather late over here. So I'll try (quite) a few hours later. But acpidump doesn't ring any bells right now. Any hints?

Thanks,

Paul Bolle

maintainer
#23 lore raw
Quoted 15 lines · Paul Bolle
Quoted 14 lines · Bjorn Helgaas
Quoted 6 lines · Paul Bolle

A bit of doubt is caused by two new boot time messages:
pnp 00:00: unknown resource type 10 in _CRS pnp 00:00: can't evaluate _CRS: 1

But I haven't yet tried v3.14-rc6 without your patch, so these might be unrelated. They're unclear to me, anyway.

Hmm, this is definitely concerning. Resource type 10 is ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32, which we do handle (unless it's length 0). And your previous dmesg logs (at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71611) don't show anything like that.

Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line

Can you attach an acpidump and the dmesg log with my patch to the bugzilla?

It's getting rather late over here. So I'll try (quite) a few hours later. But acpidump doesn't ring any bells right now. Any hints?

There's acpidump info here: https://01.org/linux-acpi/utilities . You don't need to extract the binary tables or anything; just attach the text dump to the bugzilla.

It would be very interesting to try v3.14-rc6 without my patch. I hope it has the same "unknown resource type" messages, because I don't see how my patch could be related to them. There were no recent PNP-related changes, so then I start to worry about some sort of memory corruption from an unrelated patch. But I hope that's not the case.

Bjorn

author
#24 lore raw

Bjorn Helgaas schreef op ma 10-03-2014 om 20:07 [-0600]:

Quoted 16 lines · Paul Bolle
Quoted 15 lines · Bjorn Helgaas
Quoted 14 lines · Paul Bolle
Quoted 6 lines

A bit of doubt is caused by two new boot time messages:
pnp 00:00: unknown resource type 10 in _CRS pnp 00:00: can't evaluate _CRS: 1

But I haven't yet tried v3.14-rc6 without your patch, so these might be unrelated. They're unclear to me, anyway.

Hmm, this is definitely concerning. Resource type 10 is ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32, which we do handle (unless it's length 0). And your previous dmesg logs (at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71611) don't show anything like that.

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line

Can you attach an acpidump and the dmesg log with my patch to the bugzilla?

It's getting rather late over here. So I'll try (quite) a few hours later. But acpidump doesn't ring any bells right now. Any hints?

There's acpidump info here: https://01.org/linux-acpi/utilities . You don't need to extract the binary tables or anything; just attach the text dump to the bugzilla.

(On Fedora it's shipped in acpica-tools. But since acpidump is a symlink to /usr/bin/acpidump-acpica that is created at install time it won't show up when one does "repoquery -f "*/acpidump". Add to this that "yum list pmtools" returns an error, and one is guaranteed roughly 30 minutes of sheer fun. Unsurprisingly, stubbornly trying "yum install pmtools" will actually install acpica-tools.)

At least this all is written down somewhere now.)

Quoted 6 lines

It would be very interesting to try v3.14-rc6 without my patch. I hope it has the same "unknown resource type" messages, because I don't see how my patch could be related to them. There were no recent PNP-related changes, so then I start to worry about some sort of memory corruption from an unrelated patch. But I hope that's not the case.

lkml.org is returning some error page, but Markus Trippelsdorf just reported seeing this message too. Markus is unlikely to be also trying this patch.

I've just added you to the CC's of my reply to Markus. I won't update the bugzilla report for now, because those messages appear unrelated to your patch.

Thanks,

Paul Bolle