diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
index 3b6ac3694b8d..4c1c558f7161 100644
--- a/mm/memory-failure.c
+++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
@@ -2266,7 +2266,11 @@ static void __memory_failure_work_func(struct
work_struct *work, bool sync)
break;
if (entry.flags & MF_SOFT_OFFLINE)
soft_offline_page(entry.pfn, entry.flags);
- else if (!sync || (entry.flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED))
+ else if (sync) {
+ if ((entry.flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) &&
+ memory_failure(entry.pfn, entry.flags))
+ force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, 0, 0);
+ } else
memory_failure(entry.pfn, entry.flags);
Hi,
Some of the ideas in this patch are wrong :-(
1. As Shuai Xue said, it is wrong to judge synchronization error and
asynchronization error through functions such as
memory_failure_queue_kick()/ghes_proc()/ghes_proc_in_irq(), because both
synchronization error and asynchronization error may go to the same
notification.
Hi Bixuan:
Thanks for your review. I agree with you that ghes_proc_in_irq() is
called in SDEI, SEA, NMI notify type, they are NMI-like notify, this
function run some job which may not be NMI safe in IRQ context. And NMI
may be asynchronous error.
However, cureent kernel use ghes_kick_task_work in ghes_proc_in_irq(),
there is an assumption here that ghes_proc_in_irq() are currently in the
context of a synchronous exception, although this is not appropriate.
The challenge for my patch is to prove the rationality of distinguishing
synchronous errors. I do not have a good idea yet of distinguishing
synchronous error by looking through ACPI/UEFI spec, so I sent this
patchset for more input. And I resent RFC PATCH v1 [1]add this as TODO.
2. There is no need to pass 'sync' to __memory_failure_work_func(),
because memory_failure() can directly handle synchronous and
asynchronous errors according to entry.flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED:
entry.flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED == 1: Action: poison page and kill task
for synchronous error
entry.flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED == 0: Action: poison page for
asynchronous error
Reference x86:
do_machine_check # MCE, synchronous
->kill_me_maybe
->memory_failure(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, MF_ACTION_REQUIRED);
uc_decode_notifier # CMCI, asynchronous
->memory_failure(pfn, 0)
At the same time, the modification here is repeated with your patch 01
if (sev == GHES_SEV_RECOVERABLE && sec_sev == GHES_SEV_RECOVERABLE)
- flags = 0;
+ flags = sync ? MF_ACTION_REQUIRED : 0;
Thanks, there is indeed no need to pass 'sync' to
__memory_failure_work_func(). MF_ACTION_REQUIRED can cover this, I will
update it in the next version patchset.
3. Why add 'force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, 0, 0)' after
memory_failure(pfn, MF_ACTION_REQUIRED)?
The task will be killed in memory_failure():
if poisoned, kill_accessing_process()->kill_proc()
if not poisoned, hwpoison_user_mappings()->collect_procs()->kill_procs()
Reference x86 to handle synchronous error:
kill_me_maybe()
{
int flags = MF_ACTION_REQUIRED;
ret = memory_failure(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, flags);
if (!ret) {
...
return;
}
if (ret == -EHWPOISON || ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
return;
pr_err("Memory error not recovered");
kill_me_now(cb);
}
Thanks again, this patch is based on synchronous error is not
distinguished from
asynchronous error, in that case, kill_accessing_process() run in
kthread worker may not kill current thread. Now, based on the first
patch, this SEA loop can be handled. But this patch is also needed
reference x86 kill_me_maybe(), I update this patch in RFC PATCH v1[1].
I will integrate this patch into the first patch, because this patch
commit message is not suitable based on the first patch.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20221207093935.1972530-1-lvying6@xxxxxxxxxx/T/
--
Thanks!
Lv Ying
