On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 4:57 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:15 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:53:08PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > @@ -1148,8 +1148,12 @@ static int __get_hwpoison_page(struct page *page)
> > > return -EBUSY;
> > >
> > > if (get_page_unless_zero(head)) {
> > > - if (head == compound_head(page))
> > > + if (head == compound_head(page)) {
> > > + if (PageTransHuge(head))
> > > + SetPageHasHWPoisoned(head);
> > > +
> > > return 1;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > pr_info("Memory failure: %#lx cannot catch tail\n",
> > > page_to_pfn(page));
> >
> > Sorry for the late comments.
> >
> > I'm wondering whether it's ideal to set this bit here, as get_hwpoison_page()
> > sounds like a pure helper to get a refcount out of a sane hwpoisoned page. I'm
> > afraid there can be side effect that we set this without being noticed, so I'm
> > also wondering we should keep it in memory_failure().
> >
> > Quotting comments for get_hwpoison_page():
> >
> > * get_hwpoison_page() takes a page refcount of an error page to handle memory
> > * error on it, after checking that the error page is in a well-defined state
> > * (defined as a page-type we can successfully handle the memor error on it,
> > * such as LRU page and hugetlb page).
> >
> > For example, I see that both unpoison_memory() and soft_offline_page() will
> > call it too, does it mean that we'll also set the bits e.g. even when we want
> > to inject an unpoison event too?
>
> unpoison_memory() should be not a problem since it will just bail out
> once THP is met as the comment says:
>
> /*
> * unpoison_memory() can encounter thp only when the thp is being
> * worked by memory_failure() and the page lock is not held yet.
> * In such case, we yield to memory_failure() and make unpoison fail.
> */
>
>
> And I think we should set the flag for soft offline too, right? The
> soft offline does set the hwpoison flag for the corrupted sub page and
> doesn't split file THP, so it should be captured by page fault as
> well. And yes for poison injection.
Err... I must be blind. The soft offline does *NOT* set hwpoison flag
for any page. So your comment does stand. The flag should be set
outside get_hwpoison_page().
>
> But your comment reminds me that get_hwpoison_page() is just called
> when !MF_COUNT_INCREASED, so it means MADV_HWPOISON still could
> escape. This needs to be covered too.
>
> BTW, I did the test with MADV_HWPOISON, but I didn't test this change
> (moving flag set after get_page_unless_zero()) since I thought it was
> just a trivial change and did overlook this case.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Peter Xu
> >
