On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 11:07 PM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2022/3/4 16:28, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:02:45PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> >> The huge zero page could reach here and if we ever try to split it, the
> >> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE will be triggered in split_huge_page_to_list(). Also the
> >> non-lru compound movable pages could be taken for transhuge pages. Skip
> >> these pages by checking PageLRU because huge zero page isn't lru page as
> >> non-lru compound movable pages.
> >
> > It seems that memory_failure() also fails at get_any_page() with "hwpoison:
> > unhandlable page" message.
> >
> > [16478.203474] page:00000000b6acdbd1 refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x0 pfn:0x1810b4
> > [16478.206612] flags: 0x57ffffc0801000(reserved|hwpoison|node=1|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x1fffff)
> > [16478.209411] raw: 0057ffffc0801000 fffff11bc6042d08 fffff11bc6042d08 0000000000000000
> > [16478.211921] raw: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000001ffffffff 0000000000000000
> > [16478.214473] page dumped because: hwpoison: unhandlable page
> > [16478.216386] Memory failure: 0x1810b4: recovery action for unknown page: Ignored
> >
> > We can't handle errors on huge (or normal) zero page, so the current
>
> Sorry for confusing commit log again. I should have a coffee before I make this patch.
> Huge or normal zero page will fail at get_any_page because they're neither HWPoisonHandlable
> nor PageHuge.
>
> > behavior seems to me more suitable than "unsplit thp".
> >
> > Or if you have some producer to reach the following path with huge zero
> > page, could you share it?
> >
>
> What I mean is that non-lru movable compound page can reach here unexpected because __PageMovable(page)
> is handleable now. So get_any_page could succeed to grab the page refcnt. And since it's compound page,
> it will go through the split_huge_page_to_list because PageTransHuge checks PageHead(page) which can also
> be true for compound page. But this type of pages is unexpected for split_huge_page_to_list.
Can we really handle non-LRU movable pages in memory failure
(uncorrectable errors)? Typically they are balloon, zsmalloc, etc.
Assuming we run into a base (4K) non-LRU movable page, we could reach
as far as identify_page_state(), it should not fall into any category
except me_unknown. So it seems we could just simply make it
unhandlable.
But it should be handlable for soft-offline since it could be migrated.
> Does this make sense for you? Thanks Naoya.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Naoya Horiguchi
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> mm/memory-failure.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> >> index 23bfd809dc8c..ac6492e36978 100644
> >> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> >> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> >> @@ -1792,6 +1792,20 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (PageTransHuge(hpage)) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * The non-lru compound movable pages could be taken for
> >> + * transhuge pages. Also huge zero page could reach here
> >> + * and if we ever try to split it, the VM_BUG_ON_PAGE will
> >> + * be triggered in split_huge_page_to_list(). Skip these
> >> + * pages by checking PageLRU because huge zero page isn't
> >> + * lru page as non-lru compound movable pages.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!PageLRU(hpage)) {
> >> + put_page(p);
> >> + action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNSPLIT_THP, MF_IGNORED);
> >> + res = -EBUSY;
> >> + goto unlock_mutex;
> >> + }
> >> /*
> >> * The flag must be set after the refcount is bumped
> >> * otherwise it may race with THP split.
> >> --
> >> 2.23.0
>
>
