Hi James, I'll send v4 to fix some small issue, for same one who interested with this feature could test it. For the question you mentioned, I will study in depth. Any comments is welcome. On 2017/9/16 2:33, James Morse wrote: > Hi Xie XiuQi, > > On 11/09/17 15:11, Xie XiuQi wrote: >> I first describe the approach of this patchset: >> >> A memory access error on the execution path usually triggers SEA. >> According to the existing process, errors occurred in the kernel, >> leading to direct panic, if it occurred the user-space, we should >> just kill process. >> >> But there is a class of error, in fact, is not necessary to kill >> process, you can recover and continue to run the process. Such as >> the instruction data corrupted, where the memory page might be >> read-only, which is has not been modified, the disk might have the >> correct data, so you can directly drop the page, ant reload it when >> necessary. >> >> So this patchset is just try to solve such problem: if the error is >> consumed in user-space and the error occurs on a clean page, you can >> directly drop the memory page without killing process. >> >> This is implemented in memory_failure, which is generic process. > >> The error reported by SEA should be handled before re-enter the process, >> or we must kill the process to prevent error propagation. >> >> memory_failure_queue() is asynchronous, in which, error info was saved >> at ghes_proc, but handled in kworker. During this period there is a context >> switching, so we can not determine which process would be switch to. So >> memory_failure_queue is not suitable for handling the problem. > > Thanks for this summary. I see the problem you're trying to solve is when > memory_failure() runs, in your scenario its not guaranteed to run before we > return to user space. > > What is the user-visible symptom of this? SIGBUS, code=0 instead of SIGBUS, > code=...MCEERR_A? > > ..in which case I'm looking at this as a race with the memory_failure() bottom > half via schedule_work(). > > How does x86 avoid this same problem? > > >> And memory_failure is not nmi-safe, so it can not be called directly in the >> SEA context. So we just handle this error at SEA exit path, and before context >> switching. > > (I need to look more into which locks memory_failure() is taking) > > >> In FFH mode, physical address can only be obtained by parsing the GHES table. >> But we only care about SEA, so the error handling is tied to the type of notification. > > I care about all the notification methods. Once the notification has been passed > to APEI I want them to behave the same so that we don't have subtle bugs between > the 11 different ways we could get a notification. This code is rarely tested > enough as it is. > >>From the arch code I just want to call out to APEI asking 'is this yours?'. If > so I expect APEI to have done all the work, if not we take the v8.0 behaviour. > > > Here you need APEI and the arch code to spot 'SEA' and treat it differently, > invoking some arm64-specific behaviour for APEI, and some > not-really-arch-specific code under /arch/arm64. There is nothing arm64 specific > about your arm_process_error(), how come the core APEI code doesn't need to do this? > > > I think this is caused by the way memory_failure() schedules its work, and that > is where I'd like to try and fix this, so that its the same for all notification > methods and all (cough: both) architectures. > > >> The TIF flag is checked on a generic path, but it will only be set when SEA occurs. >> And if we use unlikely optimization, it should have little impact on performance. > > Yes, the arch code checks _TIF_WORK_MASK in one go so there is no performance > problem for code that hasn't taken the RAS-Error. (and once we've taken a RAS > error performance is out the window!) > > >> And the TIF flag approach was used on x86 platform for years, until commit d4812e169d > > ... so x86 doesn't do this ... > >> (x86, mce: Get rid of TIF_MCE_NOTIFY and associated mce tricks)[0]. On currently arm64 >> platform, there is no IST interrupt[1] function, so we could not call memory_failure >> directly in SEA context. So the way to use TIF notification, is also a good choice, >> after all, the same way on x86 platform is verified. > > Thanks, looks like I need to read more of the history of x86's kernel-first > handling... > > > Thanks, > > James > > > . > -- Thanks, Xie XiuQi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
