Linux 6.6 th1520 other driver #7

RevySR · 2024-05-07T08:29:58Z

Wait #2

add feature

GPIO
USB
PVT
PWM
CPUFREQ
ETHERNET
light-event

add board support

lpi4a cluster (8g/16g)
lpi4a (16g)
meles (4g/8g)

Fix warning in light_set_target() during boot that cpu_pll1_foutpostdiv was already disabled. Only call clk_disable_unprepare() for LIGHT_CPU_PLL0_FOUTPOSTDIV if clk_set_parent() returns non-zero value. Signed-off-by: Drew Fustini <[email protected]>

…tifier_call Removed unused variable 'val' from panic_cpufreq_notifier_call(). Signed-off-by: Drew Fustini <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

Add documentation to describe th1520 reset device Signed-off-by: Kwanghoon Son <[email protected]>

This driver supports th1520 T-HEAD SoC reset platform device. Signed-off-by: Kwanghoon Son <[email protected]>

Add reset device tree for th1520 SoC Signed-off-by: Kwanghoon Son <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Haaland Chen <[email protected]>

…s in tail_call This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32: - s64lp64 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s64ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s32ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation. Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>

commit 9d274c1 upstream. We have been seeing crashes on duplicate keys in btrfs_set_item_key_safe(): BTRFS critical (device vdb): slot 4 key (450 108 8192) new key (450 108 8192) ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2620! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI CPU: 0 PID: 3139 Comm: xfs_io Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0 #6 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.3-2.fc40 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:btrfs_set_item_key_safe+0x11f/0x290 [btrfs] With the following stack trace: #0 btrfs_set_item_key_safe (fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2620:4) #1 btrfs_drop_extents (fs/btrfs/file.c:411:4) #2 log_one_extent (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:4732:9) #3 btrfs_log_changed_extents (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:4955:9) #4 btrfs_log_inode (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:6626:9) #5 btrfs_log_inode_parent (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:7070:8) #6 btrfs_log_dentry_safe (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:7171:8) #7 btrfs_sync_file (fs/btrfs/file.c:1933:8) #8 vfs_fsync_range (fs/sync.c:188:9) #9 vfs_fsync (fs/sync.c:202:9) #10 do_fsync (fs/sync.c:212:9) #11 __do_sys_fdatasync (fs/sync.c:225:9) #12 __se_sys_fdatasync (fs/sync.c:223:1) #13 __x64_sys_fdatasync (fs/sync.c:223:1) #14 do_syscall_x64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:52:14) #15 do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:83:7) #16 entry_SYSCALL_64+0xaf/0x14c (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:121) So we're logging a changed extent from fsync, which is splitting an extent in the log tree. But this split part already exists in the tree, triggering the BUG(). This is the state of the log tree at the time of the crash, dumped with drgn (https://github.com/osandov/drgn/blob/main/contrib/btrfs_tree.py) to get more details than btrfs_print_leaf() gives us: >>> print_extent_buffer(prog.crashed_thread().stack_trace()[0]["eb"]) leaf 33439744 level 0 items 72 generation 9 owner 18446744073709551610 leaf 33439744 flags 0x100000000000000 fs uuid e5bd3946-400c-4223-8923-190ef1f18677 chunk uuid d58cb17e-6d02-494a-829a-18b7d8a399da item 0 key (450 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 16123 itemsize 160 generation 7 transid 9 size 8192 nbytes 8473563889606862198 block group 0 mode 100600 links 1 uid 0 gid 0 rdev 0 sequence 204 flags 0x10(PREALLOC) atime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43) ctime 1716417704.983333333 (2024-05-22 15:41:44) mtime 1716417704.983333333 (2024-05-22 15:41:44) otime 17592186044416.000000000 (559444-03-08 01:40:16) item 1 key (450 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 16110 itemsize 13 index 195 namelen 3 name: 193 item 2 key (450 XATTR_ITEM 1640047104) itemoff 16073 itemsize 37 location key (0 UNKNOWN.0 0) type XATTR transid 7 data_len 1 name_len 6 name: user.a data a item 3 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 16020 itemsize 53 generation 9 type 1 (regular) extent data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288 extent data offset 0 nr 4096 ram 12288 extent compression 0 (none) item 4 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 4096) itemoff 15967 itemsize 53 generation 9 type 2 (prealloc) prealloc data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288 prealloc data offset 4096 nr 8192 item 5 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 8192) itemoff 15914 itemsize 53 generation 9 type 2 (prealloc) prealloc data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288 prealloc data offset 8192 nr 4096 ... So the real problem happened earlier: notice that items 4 (4k-12k) and 5 (8k-12k) overlap. Both are prealloc extents. Item 4 straddles i_size and item 5 starts at i_size. Here is the state of the filesystem tree at the time of the crash: >>> root = prog.crashed_thread().stack_trace()[2]["inode"].root >>> ret, nodes, slots = btrfs_search_slot(root, BtrfsKey(450, 0, 0)) >>> print_extent_buffer(nodes[0]) leaf 30425088 level 0 items 184 generation 9 owner 5 leaf 30425088 flags 0x100000000000000 fs uuid e5bd3946-400c-4223-8923-190ef1f18677 chunk uuid d58cb17e-6d02-494a-829a-18b7d8a399da ... item 179 key (450 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 4907 itemsize 160 generation 7 transid 7 size 4096 nbytes 12288 block group 0 mode 100600 links 1 uid 0 gid 0 rdev 0 sequence 6 flags 0x10(PREALLOC) atime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43) ctime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43) mtime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43) otime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43) item 180 key (450 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 4894 itemsize 13 index 195 namelen 3 name: 193 item 181 key (450 XATTR_ITEM 1640047104) itemoff 4857 itemsize 37 location key (0 UNKNOWN.0 0) type XATTR transid 7 data_len 1 name_len 6 name: user.a data a item 182 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 4804 itemsize 53 generation 9 type 1 (regular) extent data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288 extent data offset 0 nr 8192 ram 12288 extent compression 0 (none) item 183 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 8192) itemoff 4751 itemsize 53 generation 9 type 2 (prealloc) prealloc data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288 prealloc data offset 8192 nr 4096 Item 5 in the log tree corresponds to item 183 in the filesystem tree, but nothing matches item 4. Furthermore, item 183 is the last item in the leaf. btrfs_log_prealloc_extents() is responsible for logging prealloc extents beyond i_size. It first truncates any previously logged prealloc extents that start beyond i_size. Then, it walks the filesystem tree and copies the prealloc extent items to the log tree. If it hits the end of a leaf, then it calls btrfs_next_leaf(), which unlocks the tree and does another search. However, while the filesystem tree is unlocked, an ordered extent completion may modify the tree. In particular, it may insert an extent item that overlaps with an extent item that was already copied to the log tree. This may manifest in several ways depending on the exact scenario, including an EEXIST error that is silently translated to a full sync, overlapping items in the log tree, or this crash. This particular crash is triggered by the following sequence of events: - Initially, the file has i_size=4k, a regular extent from 0-4k, and a prealloc extent beyond i_size from 4k-12k. The prealloc extent item is the last item in its B-tree leaf. - The file is fsync'd, which copies its inode item and both extent items to the log tree. - An xattr is set on the file, which sets the BTRFS_INODE_COPY_EVERYTHING flag. - The range 4k-8k in the file is written using direct I/O. i_size is extended to 8k, but the ordered extent is still in flight. - The file is fsync'd. Since BTRFS_INODE_COPY_EVERYTHING is set, this calls copy_inode_items_to_log(), which calls btrfs_log_prealloc_extents(). - btrfs_log_prealloc_extents() finds the 4k-12k prealloc extent in the filesystem tree. Since it starts before i_size, it skips it. Since it is the last item in its B-tree leaf, it calls btrfs_next_leaf(). - btrfs_next_leaf() unlocks the path. - The ordered extent completion runs, which converts the 4k-8k part of the prealloc extent to written and inserts the remaining prealloc part from 8k-12k. - btrfs_next_leaf() does a search and finds the new prealloc extent 8k-12k. - btrfs_log_prealloc_extents() copies the 8k-12k prealloc extent into the log tree. Note that it overlaps with the 4k-12k prealloc extent that was copied to the log tree by the first fsync. - fsync calls btrfs_log_changed_extents(), which tries to log the 4k-8k extent that was written. - This tries to drop the range 4k-8k in the log tree, which requires adjusting the start of the 4k-12k prealloc extent in the log tree to 8k. - btrfs_set_item_key_safe() sees that there is already an extent starting at 8k in the log tree and calls BUG(). Fix this by detecting when we're about to insert an overlapping file extent item in the log tree and truncating the part that would overlap. CC: [email protected] # 6.1+ Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit f1e197a ] trace_drop_common() is called with preemption disabled, and it acquires a spin_lock. This is problematic for RT kernels because spin_locks are sleeping locks in this configuration, which causes the following splat: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:48 in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, pid: 449, name: rcuc/47 preempt_count: 1, expected: 0 RCU nest depth: 2, expected: 2 5 locks held by rcuc/47/449: #0: ff1100086ec30a60 ((softirq_ctrl.lock)){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: __local_bh_disable_ip+0x105/0x210 #1: ffffffffb394a280 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: rt_spin_lock+0xbf/0x130 #2: ffffffffb394a280 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: __local_bh_disable_ip+0x11c/0x210 #3: ffffffffb394a160 (rcu_callback){....}-{0:0}, at: rcu_do_batch+0x360/0xc70 #4: ff1100086ee07520 (&data->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: trace_drop_common.constprop.0+0xb5/0x290 irq event stamp: 139909 hardirqs last enabled at (139908): [<ffffffffb1df2b33>] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x63/0x80 hardirqs last disabled at (139909): [<ffffffffb19bd03d>] trace_drop_common.constprop.0+0x26d/0x290 softirqs last enabled at (139892): [<ffffffffb07a1083>] __local_bh_enable_ip+0x103/0x170 softirqs last disabled at (139898): [<ffffffffb0909b33>] rcu_cpu_kthread+0x93/0x1f0 Preemption disabled at: [<ffffffffb1de786b>] rt_mutex_slowunlock+0xab/0x2e0 CPU: 47 PID: 449 Comm: rcuc/47 Not tainted 6.9.0-rc2-rt1+ #7 Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R650/0Y2G81, BIOS 1.6.5 04/15/2022 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x8c/0xd0 dump_stack+0x14/0x20 __might_resched+0x21e/0x2f0 rt_spin_lock+0x5e/0x130 ? trace_drop_common.constprop.0+0xb5/0x290 ? skb_queue_purge_reason.part.0+0x1bf/0x230 trace_drop_common.constprop.0+0xb5/0x290 ? preempt_count_sub+0x1c/0xd0 ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x4a/0x80 ? __pfx_trace_drop_common.constprop.0+0x10/0x10 ? rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x26a/0x2e0 ? skb_queue_purge_reason.part.0+0x1bf/0x230 ? __pfx_rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x10/0x10 ? skb_queue_purge_reason.part.0+0x1bf/0x230 trace_kfree_skb_hit+0x15/0x20 trace_kfree_skb+0xe9/0x150 kfree_skb_reason+0x7b/0x110 skb_queue_purge_reason.part.0+0x1bf/0x230 ? __pfx_skb_queue_purge_reason.part.0+0x10/0x10 ? mark_lock.part.0+0x8a/0x520 ... trace_drop_common() also disables interrupts, but this is a minor issue because we could easily replace it with a local_lock. Replace the spin_lock with raw_spin_lock to avoid sleeping in atomic context. Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <[email protected]> Reported-by: Hu Chunyu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

This bug is come from faulting in PGD entries [1], rv32 ISA can't solve it because of its satp design. This problem has been solved in both s64ilp32 and s64lp64. Only s32ilp32 has the problem. clk: Disabling unused clocks dw-apb-uart 1900d000.serial: forbid DMA for kernel console Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address c0c00000 Oops [#1] Modules linked in: CPU: 1 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.6.0 #7 Hardware name: T-HEAD C9XX (DT) epc : __memset+0x58/0xf8 ra : free_reserved_area+0x148/0x186 epc : c08483c8 ra : c014e330 sp : c206ff00 gp : c1cb8fe8 tp : c20f8000 t0 : c0c00000 t1 : 5fc00000 t2 : 00000011 s0 : c206ff50 s1 : 000000cc a0 : c0c00000 a1 : cccccccc a2 : 00001000 a3 : c0c01000 a4 : 00000000 a5 : 000000ff a6 : 00000001 a7 : 52464e43 s2 : c1017000 s3 : ffffffff s4 : 00000000 s5 : ffffbfff s6 : c1cbb834 s7 : c1ce5e80 s8 : c15f2220 s9 : c0c00000 s10: ff320000 s11: 00000001 t3 : 0000000f t4 : e0000000 t5 : 00000004 t6 : c2939011 status: 00008120 badaddr: c0c00000 cause: 0000000f [<c08483c8>] __memset+0x58/0xf8 [<c000416e>] free_initmem+0x74/0x82 [<c0856bf6>] kernel_init+0x3a/0x106 [<c00035ba>] ret_from_fork+0xa/0x1c Code: 0713 0807 82b3 40e2 0797 0000 8793 00c7 97ba 8782 (a023) 00b2 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init! exitcode=0x0000000b [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>

…s in tail_call This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32: - s64lp64 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s64ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s32ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation. Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>

This bug is come from faulting in PGD entries [1], rv32 ISA can't solve it because of its satp design. This problem has been solved in both s64ilp32 and s64lp64. Only s32ilp32 has the problem. clk: Disabling unused clocks dw-apb-uart 1900d000.serial: forbid DMA for kernel console Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address c0c00000 Oops [#1] Modules linked in: CPU: 1 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.6.0 #7 Hardware name: T-HEAD C9XX (DT) epc : __memset+0x58/0xf8 ra : free_reserved_area+0x148/0x186 epc : c08483c8 ra : c014e330 sp : c206ff00 gp : c1cb8fe8 tp : c20f8000 t0 : c0c00000 t1 : 5fc00000 t2 : 00000011 s0 : c206ff50 s1 : 000000cc a0 : c0c00000 a1 : cccccccc a2 : 00001000 a3 : c0c01000 a4 : 00000000 a5 : 000000ff a6 : 00000001 a7 : 52464e43 s2 : c1017000 s3 : ffffffff s4 : 00000000 s5 : ffffbfff s6 : c1cbb834 s7 : c1ce5e80 s8 : c15f2220 s9 : c0c00000 s10: ff320000 s11: 00000001 t3 : 0000000f t4 : e0000000 t5 : 00000004 t6 : c2939011 status: 00008120 badaddr: c0c00000 cause: 0000000f [<c08483c8>] __memset+0x58/0xf8 [<c000416e>] free_initmem+0x74/0x82 [<c0856bf6>] kernel_init+0x3a/0x106 [<c00035ba>] ret_from_fork+0xa/0x1c Code: 0713 0807 82b3 40e2 0797 0000 8793 00c7 97ba 8782 (a023) 00b2 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init! exitcode=0x0000000b [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>

…s in tail_call This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32: - s64lp64 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s64ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s32ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation. Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>

This bug is come from faulting in PGD entries [1], rv32 ISA can't solve it because of its satp design. This problem has been solved in both s64ilp32 and s64lp64. Only s32ilp32 has the problem. clk: Disabling unused clocks dw-apb-uart 1900d000.serial: forbid DMA for kernel console Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address c0c00000 Oops [#1] Modules linked in: CPU: 1 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.6.0 #7 Hardware name: T-HEAD C9XX (DT) epc : __memset+0x58/0xf8 ra : free_reserved_area+0x148/0x186 epc : c08483c8 ra : c014e330 sp : c206ff00 gp : c1cb8fe8 tp : c20f8000 t0 : c0c00000 t1 : 5fc00000 t2 : 00000011 s0 : c206ff50 s1 : 000000cc a0 : c0c00000 a1 : cccccccc a2 : 00001000 a3 : c0c01000 a4 : 00000000 a5 : 000000ff a6 : 00000001 a7 : 52464e43 s2 : c1017000 s3 : ffffffff s4 : 00000000 s5 : ffffbfff s6 : c1cbb834 s7 : c1ce5e80 s8 : c15f2220 s9 : c0c00000 s10: ff320000 s11: 00000001 t3 : 0000000f t4 : e0000000 t5 : 00000004 t6 : c2939011 status: 00008120 badaddr: c0c00000 cause: 0000000f [<c08483c8>] __memset+0x58/0xf8 [<c000416e>] free_initmem+0x74/0x82 [<c0856bf6>] kernel_init+0x3a/0x106 [<c00035ba>] ret_from_fork+0xa/0x1c Code: 0713 0807 82b3 40e2 0797 0000 8793 00c7 97ba 8782 (a023) 00b2 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init! exitcode=0x0000000b [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>

…s in tail_call This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32: - s64lp64 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s64ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s32ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation. Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>

This bug is come from faulting in PGD entries [1], rv32 ISA can't solve it because of its satp design. This problem has been solved in both s64ilp32 and s64lp64. Only s32ilp32 has the problem. clk: Disabling unused clocks dw-apb-uart 1900d000.serial: forbid DMA for kernel console Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address c0c00000 Oops [#1] Modules linked in: CPU: 1 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.6.0 #7 Hardware name: T-HEAD C9XX (DT) epc : __memset+0x58/0xf8 ra : free_reserved_area+0x148/0x186 epc : c08483c8 ra : c014e330 sp : c206ff00 gp : c1cb8fe8 tp : c20f8000 t0 : c0c00000 t1 : 5fc00000 t2 : 00000011 s0 : c206ff50 s1 : 000000cc a0 : c0c00000 a1 : cccccccc a2 : 00001000 a3 : c0c01000 a4 : 00000000 a5 : 000000ff a6 : 00000001 a7 : 52464e43 s2 : c1017000 s3 : ffffffff s4 : 00000000 s5 : ffffbfff s6 : c1cbb834 s7 : c1ce5e80 s8 : c15f2220 s9 : c0c00000 s10: ff320000 s11: 00000001 t3 : 0000000f t4 : e0000000 t5 : 00000004 t6 : c2939011 status: 00008120 badaddr: c0c00000 cause: 0000000f [<c08483c8>] __memset+0x58/0xf8 [<c000416e>] free_initmem+0x74/0x82 [<c0856bf6>] kernel_init+0x3a/0x106 [<c00035ba>] ret_from_fork+0xa/0x1c Code: 0713 0807 82b3 40e2 0797 0000 8793 00c7 97ba 8782 (a023) 00b2 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init! exitcode=0x0000000b [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>

…s in tail_call This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32: - s64lp64 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s64ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s32ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation. Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>

RevySR force-pushed the linux-6.6-th1520-other branch from b1eff5f to b65d96a Compare May 8, 2024 13:04

ixgbe01 and others added 23 commits May 15, 2024 15:40

add TH1520 cpu frequency driver

6c8debd

fix compile th1520-beaglev-ahead error

6834612

cpufreq: light-mpw-cpufreq: fix -Wunused-variable in panic_cpufreq_no…

b8fd4d6

…tifier_call Removed unused variable 'val' from panic_cpufreq_notifier_call(). Signed-off-by: Drew Fustini <[email protected]>

cpufreq: correct typo in config name

48c4595

configs: enable th1520 cpufreq

d0fbc89

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

[NFU] th1520_aon: update sdk 1.4.2

3134077

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

[NFU] th1520_light_event: update sdk 1.4.2

c393671

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

[NFU] light_wdt: update sdk 1.4.2

991c4ac

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

configs: enable CONFIG_LIGHT_PMIC_WATCHDOG

b72cd7f

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

dt-bindings: reset: Document th1520 reset control

0a425f7

Add documentation to describe th1520 reset device Signed-off-by: Kwanghoon Son <[email protected]>

reset: Add th1520 reset driver support

559c0da

This driver supports th1520 T-HEAD SoC reset platform device. Signed-off-by: Kwanghoon Son <[email protected]>

riscv: dts: Add th1520 reset device tree

e62d280

Add reset device tree for th1520 SoC Signed-off-by: Kwanghoon Son <[email protected]>

[NFU] riscv: dts: add watchdog node

3d0ef8a

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

[NFU] rpmsg: mailbox-client: sync thead sdk 1.4.2

98631c4

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

configs: enable RPMSG_THEAD_LIGHT=y

68cf11d

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

[NFU] dts: th1520: add mbox client node

fddc504

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

[NFU] dts: th1520: lpi4a: add rpmsg node

a22eb70

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

[NFU] riscv: dts: lpi4a 16g support

97e490e

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

[NFU] dts: th1520-lichee-pi-4a: add alias for emmc & sd

8c6d336

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

[NFU] dts: th1520-beaglev-ahead: add alias for emmc & sd

d448ca7

Signed-off-by: Han Gao <[email protected]>

Add th1520-lichee-cluster-4a dts support (8G/16G)

f93dab8

riscv: dts: thead: th1520: Add Milk-V Meles board

a444be2

Signed-off-by: Haaland Chen <[email protected]>

RevySR force-pushed the linux-6.6-th1520-other branch from b65d96a to a444be2 Compare May 15, 2024 07:40

RevySR deleted the branch ruyisdk:linux-6.6 July 18, 2024 08:20

RevySR closed this Jul 18, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Linux 6.6 th1520 other driver #7

Linux 6.6 th1520 other driver #7

RevySR commented May 7, 2024

Linux 6.6 th1520 other driver #7

Linux 6.6 th1520 other driver #7

Conversation

RevySR commented May 7, 2024

add feature

add board support