Re: ❌ FAIL: Test report for kernel 5.13.0-rc4 (arm-next, 8124c8a6)

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Veronika Kabatova wrote:

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:51 PM Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 12:40:07PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 12:12, Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:35:01AM -0000, CKI Project wrote:

quoted

     stress: stress-ng

This explodes pretty badly. Some CPUs detect RCU stalls when trying to use
the EFI "efi_read_time" service, which eventually fails but soon after we
explode trying to access memory which I think is mapped by
acpi_os_ioremap(), so it looks like the f/w might be the culprit here. Is
the "HPE Apollo 70" machine known to have bad EFI firmware?

https://arr-cki-prod-datawarehouse-public.s3.amazonaws.com/datawarehouse-public/2021/06/01/313156257/build_aarch64_redhat%3A1310052388/tests/stress_stress_ng/10079827_aarch64_2_dmesg.log

(scroll to the end for the fireworks)

Wow that looks pretty horrible. I take it this tree has your MAIR changes?

Nope, this is just vanilla -rc4! I'm trying to get a "known good" base
before I throw all the new things at it :)

quoted

Would be useful to have a log with efi=debug, to see what the EFI
memory map looks like.

Veronika -- please could you help us with that?

Sure, I'll get a rerun with that option and report back when I have any
results. I am also planning just a plain rerun on the machine to see if it
reproduces somewhat reliably, however the machine is taken up by
other automation now so it will take a while.

Thanks. In the meantime, I've pushed a bunch of new stuff into for-kernelci,
so I can at least see if it regresses when compared to the three failures
we're seeing here.

My original reply is sitting in moderation queue as I wasn't subscribed
(hopefully now after subscribing this email will get to the list...) but for
the new people on the thread, one of the LTP issues is a potential
testing bug:

https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-tests/-/issues/577

Aha, good. That at least looks like a generic (non-arm64) thing that we can
ignore for the purposes of the arm64 tree.

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel