From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B266BC433DF for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 19:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA18D221E2 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 19:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726167AbgHFTXg (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 15:23:36 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33610 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726055AbgHFTXf (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 15:23:35 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545E9AF19; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 19:23:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:23:33 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm changes for v5.9 Message-ID: <20200806192333.GB24304@suse.de> References: <20200803190354.GA1293087@gmail.com> <20200805110348.GA108872@zx2c4.com> <20200806131034.GA2067370@gmail.com> <20200806185723.GA24304@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 12:02:40PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But you may obviously have different settings for CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL, > and maybe that ends up changing something? > > But since apparently it's not immediately obvious what the problem is, > I'll revert it for now. Yes, that's the best for now. My gut feeling is that the fault Jason is seeing didn't happen on a vmalloc address, but I can't prove that yet. And if this is true it means that more work is needed before the syncing on x86-64 can be removed, so reverting is the best for now. Jason, can you share more details about the test setup which triggers this? Like the .config and the machine setup, ideally a qemu command-line, and how to reproduce it on that setup. Thanks, Joerg