Date:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 11:53:58 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>,
        Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Benoit Grégoire <benoitg@...us.ca>,
        Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] x86/PCI: Ignore E820 reservations for bridge
 windows on newer systems

Hi Bjorn,

On 10/22/21 03:20, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 07:15:57PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 10/20/21 23:14, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:23:26PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> On 10/19/21 23:52, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 08:39:42PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>>> Some BIOS-es contain a bug where they add addresses which map to system
>>>>>> RAM in the PCI host bridge window returned by the ACPI _CRS method, see
>>>>>> commit 4dc2287c1805 ("x86: avoid E820 regions when allocating address
>>>>>> space").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To work around this bug Linux excludes E820 reserved addresses when
>>>>>> allocating addresses from the PCI host bridge window since 2010.
>>>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen anybody else eager to merge this, so I guess I'll stick
>>>>> my neck out here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I applied this to my for-linus branch for v5.15.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, and sorry about the build-errors which the lkp
>>>> kernel-test-robot found.
>>>>
>>>> I've just send out a patch which fixes these build-errors
>>>> (verified with both .config-s from the lkp reports).
>>>> Feel free to squash this into the original patch (or keep
>>>> them separate, whatever works for you).
>>>
>>> Thanks, I squashed the fix in.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER, I think it would be fairly risky to push this into v5.15.
>>> We would be relying on the assumption that current machines have all
>>> fixed the BIOS defect that 4dc2287c1805 addressed, and we have little
>>> evidence for that.
>>
>> It is a 10 year old BIOS defect, so hopefully anything from 2018
>> or later will not have it.
> 
> We can hope.  AFAIK, Windows allocates space top-down, while Linux
> allocates bottom-up, so I think it's quite possible these defects
> would never be discovered or fixed.  In any event, I don't think we
> have much evidence either way.

Ack.

>>> I'm not sure there's significant benefit to having this in v5.15.
>>> Yes, the mainline v5.15 kernel would work on the affected machines,
>>> but I suspect most people with those machines are running distro
>>> kernels, not mainline kernels.
>>
>> Fedora and Arch do follow mainline pretty closely and a lot of
>> users are affected by this (see the large number of BugLinks in
>> the commit).
>>
>> I completely understand why you are reluctant to push this out, but
>> your argument about most distros not running mainline kernels also
>> applies to chances of people where this may cause a regression
>> running mainline kernels also being quite small.
> 
> True.
> 
>>> This issue has been around a long time, so it's not like a regression
>>> that we just introduced.  If we fixed these machines and regressed
>>> *other* machines, we'd be worse off than we are now.
>>
>> If we break one machine model and fix a whole bunch of other machines
>> then in my book that is a win. Ideally we would not break anything,
>> but we can only find out if we actually break anything if we ship
>> the change.
> 
> I'm definitely not going to try the "fix many, break one" argument on
> Linus.  Of course we want to fix systems, but IMO it's far better to
> leave a system broken than it is to break one that used to work.

Right, what I meant to say with "a win" is a step in the right direction,
we definitely must address any regressions coming from this change as
soon as we learn about them.

>>> In the meantime, here's another possibility for working around this.
>>> What if we discarded remove_e820_regions() completely, but aligned the
>>> problem _CRS windows a little more?  The 4dc2287c1805 case was this:
>>>
>>>   BIOS-e820: 00000000bfe4dc00 - 00000000c0000000 (reserved)
>>>   pci_root PNP0A03:00: host bridge window [mem 0xbff00000-0xdfffffff]
>>>
>>> where the _CRS window was of size 0x20100000, i.e., 512M + 1M.  At
>>> least in this particular case, we could avoid the problem by throwing
>>> away that first 1M and aligning the window to a nice 3G boundary.
>>> Maybe it would be worth giving up a small fraction (less than 0.2% in
>>> this case) of questionable windows like this?
>>
>> The PCI BAR allocation code tries to fall back to the BIOS assigned
>> resource if the allocation fails. That BIOS assigned resource might
>> fall outside of the host bridge window after we round the address.
>>
>> My initial gut instinct here is that this has a bigger chance
>> of breaking things then my change.
>>
>> In the beginning of the thread you said that ideally we would
>> completely stop using the E820 reservations for PCI host bridge
>> windows. Because in hindsight messing with the windows on all
>> machines just to work around a clear BIOS bug in some was not a
>> good idea.
>>
>> This address-rounding/-aligning you now suggest, is again
>> messing with the windows on all machines just to work around
>> a clear BIOS bug in some. At least that is how I see this.
> 
> That's true.  I assume Red Hat has a bunch of machines and hopefully
> an archive of dmesg logs from them.  Those logs should contain good
> E820 and _CRS information, so with a little scripting, maybe we could
> get some idea of what's out there.

We do have a (large-ish) test-lab, but that contains almost exclusively
servers, where as the original problem was on Dell Precision laptops.

Also I'm not sure if I can get aggregate data from the lab's machines.
I can reserve time on any model we have to debug specific problems,
but that is targeting one specific model. I'll ask around about this.

Regards,

Hans

Powered by blists - more mailing lists