On 05/18/2016 11:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:42:55PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which
taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to
use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page.
I'm not quite getting this one. Minimally, instead of = __PG_HWPOISON, it
should have been (bad_flags & __PG_POISON). As Vlastimil already pointed
out, __PG_HWPOISON can be 0. What I'm not getting is why this fixes the
race. The current race is
1. Check poison, set bad_flags
2. poison clears in parallel
3. Check page->flag state in bad_page and trigger warning
The code changes it to
1. Check poison, set bad_flags
2. poison clears in parallel
3. Check bad_flags and trigger warning
I think you got step 3 here wrong. It's "skip the warning since we have
set bad_flags to hwpoison and bad_flags didn't change due to parallel
unpoison".
Perhaps the question is why do we need to split the handling between
check_new_page_bad() and bad_page() like this? It might have been
different in the past, but seems like at this point we only look for
hwpoison from check_new_page_bad(). But a cleanup can come later.
There is warning either way. What did I miss?
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>