Am 11.11.2015 um 18:30 schrieb Andrea Arcangeli:
> Hi Jason,
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:35:16AM -0500, Jason J. Herne wrote:
>> MADV_NOHUGEPAGE processing is too restrictive. kvm already disables
>> hugepage but hugepage_madvise() takes the error path when we ask to turn
>> on the MADV_NOHUGEPAGE bit and the bit is already on. This causes Qemu's
> I wonder why KVM disables transparent hugepages on s390. It sounds
> weird to disable transparent hugepages with KVM. In fact on x86 we
> call MADV_HUGEPAGE to be sure transparent hugepages are enabled on the
> guest physical memory, even if the transparent_hugepage/enabled ==
> madvise.
>> new postcopy migration feature to fail on s390 because its first action is
>> to madvise the guest address space as NOHUGEPAGE. This patch modifies the
>> code so that the operation succeeds without error now.
> The other way is to change qemu to keep track it already called
> MADV_NOHUGEPAGE and not to call it again. I don't have a strong
> opinion on this, I think it's ok to return 0 but it's a visible change
> to userland, I can't imagine it to break anything though. It sounds
> very unlikely that an app could error out if it notices the kernel
> doesn't error out on the second call of MADV_NOHUGEPAGE.
> Glad to hear KVM postcopy live migration is already running on s390 too.

Sometimes....we have some issues with userfaultd, which we currently address.
One place is interesting: the kvm code might have to call fixup_user_fault
for a guest address (to map the page writable). Right now we do not pass
FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY, which can trigger a warning like

[  119.414573] FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY missing 1
[  119.414577] CPU: 42 PID: 12853 Comm: qemu-system-s39 Not tainted 4.3.0+ #315
[  119.414579]        000000011c4579b8 000000011c457a48 0000000000000002 
                      000000011c457ae8 000000011c457a60 000000011c457a60 
                      00000000000002cf 00000000009feef8 0000000000a1e054 
                      000000011c457aa8 000000011c457a48 0000000000000000 
                      0000000000000000 0000000000113e26 000000011c457a48 
[  119.414590] Call Trace:
[  119.414596] ([<0000000000113d16>] show_trace+0xf6/0x148)
[  119.414598]  [<0000000000113dda>] show_stack+0x72/0xf0
[  119.414600]  [<0000000000551b9e>] dump_stack+0x6e/0x90
[  119.414605]  [<000000000032d168>] handle_userfault+0xe0/0x448
[  119.414609]  [<000000000029a2d4>] handle_mm_fault+0x16e4/0x1798
[  119.414611]  [<00000000002930be>] fixup_user_fault+0x86/0x118
[  119.414614]  [<0000000000126bb8>] gmap_ipte_notify+0xa0/0x170
[  119.414617]  [<000000000013ae90>] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0x448/0xc58
[  119.414619]  [<000000000012e4dc>] kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x37c/0x668
[  119.414622]  [<00000000002eba68>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x3a8/0x508
[  119.414624]  [<00000000002ebc6c>] SyS_ioctl+0xa4/0xb8
[  119.414627]  [<0000000000815c56>] system_call+0xd6/0x264
[  119.414629]  [<000003ff9628721a>] 0x3ff9628721a

I think we can rework this to use something that sets FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY,
but this begs the question if a futex operation on userfault backed memory 
would also be broken. The futex code also does fixup_user_fault without 
FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY as far as I can tell.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to