On 3/21/2022 2:07 PM, Yang Shi wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:28 AM Luck, Tony <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 05:21:05PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:17:29AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: >>>> Validation folks are seeing this on a v5.16 kernel. I don't >>>> see any changes in v5.17 that look like they address it. >>>> >>>> Mar 04 14:05:05 JF5300-07B181T kernel: page:00000000696b0b6a refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x0 pfn:0x195cda44 >>>> Mar 04 14:05:05 JF5300-07B181T kernel: flags: 0x57ffffc0801000(reserved|hwpoison|node=1|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x1fffff) >>>> Mar 04 14:05:05 JF5300-07B181T kernel: raw: 0057ffffc0801000 ffff6ea817369108 ffff6ea817369108 0000000000000000 >>>> Mar 04 14:05:05 JF5300-07B181T kernel: raw: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000001ffffffff 0000000000000000 >>>> Mar 04 14:05:05 JF5300-07B181T kernel: page dumped because: hwpoison: unhandlable page >>>> Mar 04 14:05:05 JF5300-07B181T kernel: Memory failure: 0x195cda44: recovery action for unknown page: Ignored >>>> >>>> Som debugging shows this is an anon page (expected ... that's the >>>> type of page where the error was injected. They see shake_page() >>>> called three times, but it doesn't change anything, so the page >>>> is reported as unhandlable. >>> >>> Uhm, that's not PageAnon. page->mapping is NULL, and anon pages have >>> the bottom bit set with the rest of the page->mapping pointing to its >>> anon_vma. Why do you think it's an anon page? >> >> Sorry. I didn't do that decode ... just copied what was in the internal >> report. If it isn't anon, then does that page dump give info on what >> type the page is? > > As Willy said we can't tell what type the page is. Per the dumped > information, the page has: > - 1 refcount, likely get from hwpoison > - 0 mapcount, unmapped and not unmapped by hwpoison since > dump_page() is called before that, > - NULL mapping > - PG_reserved flag is set and no other flag is set > > So I just can say it is very unlikely to be an anonymous page. It is > not slab either. And neither anonymous/page cache nor slab should be > reserved flag set, so it should be some other types. Tony, Agreed with Matthew, it might have been a device page. So we have pfn:0x195cda44, does /proc/iomem leave any clue? thanks, -jane > >> >> -Tony >
