| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
The ColdFire based Cleopatra family of boards use mostly the same
external pin arrangements as the NETtel board family. The build uses the
NETtel specific code as needed, but not all the conditional defines
allow for this. If you have the CONFIG_NETtel config option set
everything compiles as expected, but if you only select the
CONFIG_CLEOPATRA board type then you will get compile failures:
arch/m68k/coldfire/nettel.c: In function ‘nettel_smc91x_init’:
arch/m68k/coldfire/nettel.c:126:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘mcf_setppdata’; did you mean ‘xas_set_update’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
mcf_setppdata(0, 0x0080);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
xas_set_update
Fix the nettel.h include conditional checks to cover all board types.
This also means some code paths need to check for the 5407 SoC - since
one of the Cleopatra board types is based on that. It is very similar
to the 5307 specific code, and it can use that "as-is".
Signed-off-by: Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>
|
|
The ROM region configuration settings used on some nommu m68k systems
(historically mostly 68328 (Dragonball) CPUs) default to an address
of 0. That can easily clash with default RAM address settings which
also default to 0. Of course that is invalid and those ranges overlap,
but if you make no value selection that is what you end up with. Those
default values produce a valid configuration but will fail compilation
like this:
m68k-linux-ld: section .rodata VMA [0000000000001000,0000000000262227] overlaps section .text VMA [0000000000000400,0000000000455e7f]
Looking at the platforms that use the ROM region configuration settings
it is clear that we can choose much better defaults than 0. By far the
most common ROM region settings are these:
CONFIG_ROMVEC=0x10c10000
CONFIG_ROMSTART=0x10c10400
So lets make these the default values.
It is still possible to configure overlapping ROM and RAM regions, but
at least the default selections are now valid.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305301407.z33zOjcG-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>
|
|
|
|
Michael reported soft lockups on a system that has unaccepted memory.
This occurs when a user attempts to allocate and accept memory on
multiple CPUs simultaneously.
The root cause of the issue is that memory acceptance is serialized with
a spinlock, allowing only one CPU to accept memory at a time. The other
CPUs spin and wait for their turn, leading to starvation and soft lockup
reports.
To address this, the code has been modified to release the spinlock
while accepting memory. This allows for parallel memory acceptance on
multiple CPUs.
A newly introduced "accepting_list" keeps track of which memory is
currently being accepted. This is necessary to prevent parallel
acceptance of the same memory block. If a collision occurs, the lock is
released and the process is retried.
Such collisions should rarely occur. The main path for memory acceptance
is the page allocator, which accepts memory in MAX_ORDER chunks. As long
as MAX_ORDER is equal to or larger than the unit_size, collisions will
never occur because the caller fully owns the memory block being
accepted.
Aside from the page allocator, only memblock and deferered_free_range()
accept memory, but this only happens during boot.
The code has been tested with unit_size == 128MiB to trigger collisions
and validate the retry codepath.
Fixes: 2053bc57f367 ("efi: Add unaccepted memory support")
Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Reported-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Tested-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
[ardb: drop unnecessary cpu_relax() call]
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
|
Greg Ungerer
Linus Torvalds
Kirill A. Shutemov