Regular oops on shutdown of KVM/ARM64 machines with VGA device

[marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)]

[+Will, Catalin]

On 30/06/15 19:50, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 05:20:11PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 30/06/15 17:16, Dirk M?ller wrote:
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>>> Can try the following patch?
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the quick patch, from a brief testing this seems to
>>> fix the issue (on a 4k kernel). I'll retest this in our original
>>> configuration (which was 64k) but so far I don't see a reason why it
>>> shouldn't fix the issue.
>>
>> Awesome. Mind if I put your Tested-by on the patch?
>>
> Looks to me like the definition of pmd_huge() on arm64 is broken; pretty
> sure when I reviewed this original patch I followed the path of both
> pmd_huge() and pmd_trans_huge() and checked that they don't return true
> if the entry is clear.  This happens to be the case on both arm and x86,
> and I probably only looked at the arm code and not the arm64 code.
> 
> I'm fine with this patch, but I think we should also merge the
> following, since by definition, a clear pmd cannot also be a huge pmd:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> index 2de9d2e..779520b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ int huge_pmd_unshare(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long *addr, pte_t *ptep)
>  
>  int pmd_huge(pmd_t pmd)
>  {
> -	return !(pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TABLE_BIT);
> +	return pmd_val(pmd) && !(pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TABLE_BIT);
>  }
>  
>  int pud_huge(pud_t pud)
> 

If the convention is for pmd_huge to check for pmd_none, then we don't
need my patch, and only this should be merged.

Catalin, Will: your thoughts?

        M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...