From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:20:28 +0100
Subject: Regular oops on shutdown of KVM/ARM64 machines with VGA device
In-Reply-To: <20150630185031.GA23001@cbox>
References: <CAL5wTH4MtybHBk22r593HmVX+2jqCDm4fb2MyT2L0TMkHrD7pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150629100304.GB18931@leverpostej> <55914033.5060008@arm.com>
 <CAL5wTH7EUh0ciutXKs2s-4VjKnRM65QmrUQQiRdM=R+_VXi6DA@mail.gmail.com>
 <559270D3.8030305@arm.com>
 <CAL5wTH4H7DiE-Z-YHCs7mLRPoixOOxi=yMk-j8yC1np1m=9sYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5592C1BB.9090106@arm.com> <20150630185031.GA23001@cbox>
Message-ID: <5593A2CC.2050805@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

[+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...