Re: linux-next: KVM/s390x regression

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 17.10.25 23:56, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On 10/18/25 04:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 17.10.25 17:20, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 17.10.25 um 17:07 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
>>>> On 17.10.25 17:01, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>> Am 17.10.25 um 16:54 schrieb David Hildenbrand:
>>>>>> On 17.10.25 16:49, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>>> This patch triggers a regression for s390x kvm as qemu guests can no longer start
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> error: kvm run failed Cannot allocate memory
>>>>>>> PSW=mask 0000000180000000 addr 000000007fd00600
>>>>>>> R00=0000000000000000 R01=0000000000000000 R02=0000000000000000 R03=0000000000000000
>>>>>>> R04=0000000000000000 R05=0000000000000000 R06=0000000000000000 R07=0000000000000000
>>>>>>> R08=0000000000000000 R09=0000000000000000 R10=0000000000000000 R11=0000000000000000
>>>>>>> R12=0000000000000000 R13=0000000000000000 R14=0000000000000000 R15=0000000000000000
>>>>>>> C00=00000000000000e0 C01=0000000000000000 C02=0000000000000000 C03=0000000000000000
>>>>>>> C04=0000000000000000 C05=0000000000000000 C06=0000000000000000 C07=0000000000000000
>>>>>>> C08=0000000000000000 C09=0000000000000000 C10=0000000000000000 C11=0000000000000000
>>>>>>> C12=0000000000000000 C13=0000000000000000 C14=00000000c2000000 C15=0000000000000000
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> KVM on s390x does not use THP so far, will investigate. Does anyone have a quick idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only when running KVM guests and apart from that everything else seems to be fine?
>>>>>
>>>>> We have other weirdness in linux-next but in different areas. Could that somehow be
>>>>> related to use disabling THP for the kvm address space?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure ... it's a bit weird. I mean, when KVM disables THPs we essentially just remap everything to be mapped by PTEs. So there shouldn't be any PMDs in that whole process.
>>>>
>>>> Remapping a file THP (shmem) implies zapping the THP completely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I assume in your kernel config has CONFIG_ZONE_DEVICE and CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_THP_MIGRATION set, right?
>>>
>>> yes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd rule out copy_huge_pmd(), zap_huge_pmd() a well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What happens if you revert the change in mm/pgtable-generic.c?
>>>
>>> That partial revert seems to fix the issue
>>> diff --git a/mm/pgtable-generic.c b/mm/pgtable-generic.c
>>> index 0c847cdf4fd3..567e2d084071 100644
>>> --- a/mm/pgtable-generic.c
>>> +++ b/mm/pgtable-generic.c
>>> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ pte_t *___pte_offset_map(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, pmd_t *pmdvalp)
>>>               if (pmdvalp)
>>>                    *pmdvalp = pmdval;
>>> -       if (unlikely(pmd_none(pmdval) || !pmd_present(pmdval)))
>>> +       if (unlikely(pmd_none(pmdval) || is_pmd_migration_entry(pmdval)))
>>
>> Okay, but that means that effectively we stumble over a PMD entry that is not a migration entry but still non-present.
>>
>> And I would expect that it's a page table, because otherwise the change
>> wouldn't make a difference.
>>
>> And the weird thing is that this only triggers sometimes, because if
>> it would always trigger nothing would ever work.
>>
>> Is there some weird scenario where s390x might set a left page table mapped in a PMD to non-present?
>>
> 
> Good point
> 
>> Staring at the definition of pmd_present() on s390x it's really just
>>
>>      return (pmd_val(pmd) & _SEGMENT_ENTRY_PRESENT) != 0;
>>
>>
>> Maybe this is happening in the gmap code only and not actually in the core-mm code?
>>
> 
> 
> I am not an s390 expert, but just looking at the code
> 
> So the check on s390 effectively
> 
> segment_entry/present = false or segment_entry_empty/invalid = true

pmd_present() == true iff _SEGMENT_ENTRY_PRESENT is set

because

	return (pmd_val(pmd) & _SEGMENT_ENTRY_PRESENT) != 0;

is the same as

	return pmd_val(pmd) & _SEGMENT_ENTRY_PRESENT;

But that means we have something where _SEGMENT_ENTRY_PRESENT is not set.

I suspect that can only be the gmap tables.

Likely __gmap_link() does not set _SEGMENT_ENTRY_PRESENT, which is fine 
because it's a software managed bit for "ordinary" page tables, not gmap 
tables.

Which raises the question why someone would wrongly use 
pte_offset_map()/__pte_offset_map() on the gmap tables.

I cannot immediately spot any such usage in kvm/gmap code, though.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb