On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 04:46:31PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 04/04/2016 06:45 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 10:39:17AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: ... > >>> > >>> Also (but not your fault) the put_page() preceding > >>> test_set_page_hwpoison(page)) IMHO deserves a comment saying which > >>> pin we are releasing and which one we still have (hopefully? if I > >>> read description of da1b13ccfbebe right) otherwise it looks like > >>> doing something with a page that we just potentially freed. > >> > >> Yes, while I read the code, I had same question. I think the releasing > >> refcount is for get_any_page. > > > > As the other callers of page migration do, soft_offline_page expects the > > migration source page to be freed at this put_page() (no pin remains.) > > The refcount released here is from isolate_lru_page() in __soft_offline_page(). > > (the pin by get_any_page is released by put_hwpoison_page just after it.) > > > > .. yes, doing something just after freeing page looks weird, but that's > > how PageHWPoison flag works. IOW, many other page flags are maintained > > only during one "allocate-free" life span, but PageHWPoison still does > > its job beyond it. > > But what prevents the page from being allocated again between put_page() > and test_set_page_hwpoison()? In that case we would be marking page > poisoned while still in use, which is the same as marking it while still > in use after a failed migration? Actually nothing prevents that race. But I think that the result of the race is that the error page can be reused for allocation, which results in killing processes at page fault time. Soft offline is kind of mild/precautious thing (for correctable errors that don't require immediate handling), so killing processes looks to me an overkill. And marking hwpoison means that we can no longer do retry from userspace. And another practical thing is the race with unpoison_memory() as described in commit da1b13ccfbebe. unpoison_memory() properly works only for properly poisoned pages, so doing unpoison for in-use hwpoisoned pages is fragile. That's why I'd like to avoid setting PageHWPoison for in-use pages if possible. > (Also, which part prevents pages with PageHWPoison to be allocated > again, anyway? I can't find it and test_set_page_hwpoison() doesn't > remove from buddy freelists). check_new_page() in mm/page_alloc.c should prevent reallocation of PageHWPoison. As you pointed out, memory error handler doens't remove it from buddy freelists. BTW, it might be a bit off-topic, but recently I felt that check_new_page() might be improvable, because when check_new_page() returns 1, the whole buddy block (not only the bad page) seems to be leaked from buddy freelist. For example, if thp (order 9) is requested, and PageHWPoison (or any other types of bad pages) is found in an order 9 block, all 512 page are discarded. Unpoison can't bring it back to buddy. So, some code to split buddy block including bad page (and recovering code from unpoison) might be helpful, although that's another story ... Thanks, Naoya Horiguchi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href