On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:42:04PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:03:19 -0700 > Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > All that being said, it doesn't explain why gfns like 0xfec00 and 0xfee00 > > were sensitive to (lack of) zapping. My theory is that zapping what were > > effectively random-but-interesting shadow pages cleaned things up enough > > to avoid noticeable badness. > > > > > > Alex, > > > > Can you please test the attached patch? It implements a very slimmed down > > version of kvm_mmu_zap_all() to zap only shadow pages that can hold sptes > > pointing at the memslot being removed, which was the original intent of > > kvm_mmu_invalidate_zap_pages_in_memslot(). I apologize in advance if it > > crashes the host. I'm hopeful it's correct, but given how broken the > > previous version was, I'm not exactly confident. > > It doesn't crash the host, but the guest is not happy, failing to boot > the desktop in one case and triggering errors in the guest w/o even > running test programs in another case. Seems like it might be worse > than previous. Thanks, Hrm, I'm back to being completely flummoxed. Would you be able to generate a trace of all events/kvmmmu, using the latest patch? I'd like to rule out a stupid code bug if it's not too much trouble.
