Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:01:15 +0200 > Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. -aneesh
