Re: [REPORT] Softlockups on PowerNV with upstream
From: Oscar Salvador
Date: Thu Apr 10 2025 - 01:26:24 EST
On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 11:33:44PM +0530, Aditya Gupta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While booting current upstream kernel, I consistently get "softlockups", on IBM PowerNV system.
>
> I have tested it only on PowerNV systems. But some architectures/platforms also
> might have it. PSeries systems don't have this issue though.
>
> Bisect points to the following commit:
>
> commit 61659efdb35ce6c6ac7639342098f3c4548b794b
> Author: Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed Mar 12 09:30:43 2025 +1000
>
> drivers/base/memory: improve add_boot_memory_block()
>
...
> Console log
> -----------
>
> [ 2.783371] smp: Brought up 4 nodes, 256 CPUs
> [ 2.783475] numa: Node 0 CPUs: 0-63
> [ 2.783537] numa: Node 2 CPUs: 64-127
> [ 2.783591] numa: Node 4 CPUs: 128-191
> [ 2.783653] numa: Node 6 CPUs: 192-255
> [ 2.804945] Memory: 735777792K/738197504K available (17536K kernel code, 5760K rwdata, 15232K rodata, 6528K init, 2517K bss, 1369664K reserved, 0K cma-reserved)
If I am not mistaken this is ~700GB, and PowerNV uses 16MB as section size,
and sections_per_block == 1 (I think).
The code before the mentioned commit, was something like:
for (nr = base_section_nr; nr < base_section_nr + sections_per_block; nr++)
if (present_section_nr(nr))
section_count++;
if (section_count == 0)
return 0;
return add_memory_block()
So, in case of PowerNV , we will just check one section at a time and
either return or call add_memory_block depending whether it is present.
Now, with the current code that is something different.
We now have
memory_dev_init:
for(nr = 0, nr <= __highest_present_section_nr; nr += 1)
ret = add_boot_memory_block
add_boot_memory_block:
for_each_present_section_nr(base_section_nr, nr) {
if (nr >= (base_section_nr + sections_per_block))
break;
return add_memory_block();
}
return 0;
The thing is that next_present_section_nr() (which is called in
for_each_present_section_nr()) will loop until we find a present
section.
And then we will check whether the found section is beyond
base_section_nr + sections_per_block (where sections_per_block = 1).
If so, we skip add_memory_block.
Now, I think that the issue comes from for_each_present_section_nr
having to loop a lot until we find a present section.
And then the loop in memory_dev_init increments only by 1, which means
that the next iteration we might have to loop a lot again to find the
another present section. And so on and so forth.
Maybe we can fix this by making memory_dev_init() remember in which
section add_boot_memory_block returns.
Something like the following (only compile-tested)
diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
index 8f3a41d9bfaa..d97635cbfd1d 100644
--- a/drivers/base/memory.c
+++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
@@ -816,18 +816,25 @@ static int add_memory_block(unsigned long block_id, unsigned long state,
return 0;
}
-static int __init add_boot_memory_block(unsigned long base_section_nr)
+static int __init add_boot_memory_block(unsigned long *base_section_nr)
{
+ int ret;
unsigned long nr;
- for_each_present_section_nr(base_section_nr, nr) {
- if (nr >= (base_section_nr + sections_per_block))
+ for_each_present_section_nr(*base_section_nr, nr) {
+ if (nr >= (*base_section_nr + sections_per_block))
break;
- return add_memory_block(memory_block_id(base_section_nr),
- MEM_ONLINE, NULL, NULL);
+ ret = add_memory_block(memory_block_id(*base_section_nr),
+ MEM_ONLINE, NULL, NULL);
+ *base_section = nr;
+ return ret;
}
+ if (nr == -1)
+ *base_section = __highest_present_section_nr + 1;
+ else
+ *base_section = nr;
return 0;
}
@@ -973,9 +980,9 @@ void __init memory_dev_init(void)
* Create entries for memory sections that were found
* during boot and have been initialized
*/
- for (nr = 0; nr <= __highest_present_section_nr;
- nr += sections_per_block) {
- ret = add_boot_memory_block(nr);
+ nr = first_present_section_nr();
+ for (; nr <= __highest_present_section_nr; nr += sections_per_block) {
+ ret = add_boot_memory_block(&nr);
if (ret)
panic("%s() failed to add memory block: %d\n", __func__,
ret);
@Aditya: can you please give it a try?
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs