[PATCH v4 00/13] mm/debug_vm_pgtable fixes

[Gerald Schaefer]

On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 11:38:39 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar at linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer at linux.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:01:15 +0200
> > Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >> 
> >> BTW2, a quick test with this change (so far) made the issues on s390
> >> go away:
> >> 
> >> @@ -1069,7 +1074,7 @@ static int __init debug_vm_pgtable(void)
> >>         spin_unlock(ptl);
> >> 
> >>  #ifndef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64
> >> -       hugetlb_advanced_tests(mm, vma, ptep, pte_aligned, vaddr, prot);
> >> +       hugetlb_advanced_tests(mm, vma, (pte_t *) pmdp, pmd_aligned, vaddr, prot);
> >>  #endif
> >> 
> >>         spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> >> 
> >> That would more match the "pte_t pointer" usage for hugetlb code,
> >> i.e. just cast a pmd_t pointer to it. Also changed to pmd_aligned,
> >> but I think the root cause is the pte_t pointer.
> >> 
> >> Not entirely sure though if that would really be the correct fix.
> >> I somehow lost whatever little track I had about what these tests
> >> really want to check, and if that would still be valid with that
> >> change.
> >
> > Uh oh, wasn't aware that this (or some predecessor) already went
> > upstream, and broke our debug kernel today.
> 
> Not sure i followed the above. Are you finding that s390 kernel crash
> after this patch series or the original patchset? As noted in my patch
> the hugetlb test is broken and we should fix that. A quick fix is to
> comment out that test for s390 too as i have done for PPC64.

We see it with both, it basically is broken since there is a hugetlb
test using real pte pointers. It doesn't always show, depending on
random vaddr, so it slipped through earlier testing.

I guess we also would have had one or the other chance to notice
that earlier, through better review, or better reading of previous
mails. I must admit that I neglected this a bit.