From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yk0-f176.google.com (mail-yk0-f176.google.com [209.85.160.176]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DD76B0038 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:44:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by ykek133 with SMTP id k133so293495439yke.2 for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:44:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from g4t3426.houston.hp.com (g4t3426.houston.hp.com. [15.201.208.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p82si365122ywe.224.2015.11.09.16.44.41 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:44:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1447116034.21443.41.camel@hpe.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND 4/11] x86/asm: Fix pud/pmd interfaces to handle large PAT bit From: Toshi Kani Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:40:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1447111134.21443.30.camel@hpe.com> References: <1442514264-12475-1-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com> <1442514264-12475-5-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com> <5640E08F.5020206@oracle.com> <1447096601.21443.15.camel@hpe.com> <5640F673.8070400@oracle.com> <20151109204710.GB5443@node.shutemov.name> <56411FFB.80104@oracle.com> <1447111134.21443.30.camel@hpe.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Boris Ostrovsky , "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@alien8.de, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, jgross@suse.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, elliott@hpe.com On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 16:18 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:36 -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > On 11/09/2015 03:47 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 02:39:31PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > > > On 11/09/2015 02:16 PM, Toshi Kani wrote: : > > > > > > > > FWIW, it looks like pmd_pfn_mask() inline is causing this. Reverting it > > > > alone makes this crash go away. > > > Could you check the patch below? > > > > > > I does fix the problem on baremetal, thanks. My 32-bit Xen guests still > > fail which I thought was the same issue but now that I looked at it more > > carefully it has different signature. > > I do not think Xen is hitting this, but I think page_level_mask() has the same > issue for a long time. I will set up 32-bit env on a system with >4GB memory > to verify this. As Kirill explained me in his code review comment for *PAGE_MASK, page_level_mas k() is fine as it is used for virtual addresses. -Toshi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org