On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:53 PM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 05/17/23 16:09, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
> > Adds the functionality to search a subpage's corresponding raw_hwp_page
> > in hugetlb page's HWPOISON list. This functionality can also tell if a
> > subpage is a raw HWPOISON page.
> >
> > Exports this functionality to be immediately used in the read operation
> > for hugetlbfs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/mm.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > mm/memory-failure.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index 27ce77080c79..f191a4119719 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
>
> Any reason why you decided to add the following to linux/mm.h instead of
> linux/hugetlb.h? Since it is hugetlb specific I would have thought
> hugetlb.h was more appropriate.
>
> > @@ -3683,6 +3683,29 @@ enum mf_action_page_type {
> > */
> > extern const struct attribute_group memory_failure_attr_group;
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
> > +/*
> > + * Struct raw_hwp_page represents information about "raw error page",
> > + * constructing singly linked list from ->_hugetlb_hwpoison field of folio.
> > + */
> > +struct raw_hwp_page {
> > + struct llist_node node;
> > + struct page *page;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static inline struct llist_head *raw_hwp_list_head(struct folio *folio)
> > +{
> > + return (struct llist_head *)&folio->_hugetlb_hwpoison;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Given @subpage, a raw page in a hugepage, find its location in @folio's
> > + * _hugetlb_hwpoison list. Return NULL if @subpage is not in the list.
> > + */
> > +struct raw_hwp_page *find_raw_hwp_page(struct folio *folio,
> > + struct page *subpage);
> > +#endif
> > +
> > #if defined(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE) || defined(CONFIG_HUGETLBFS)
> > extern void clear_huge_page(struct page *page,
> > unsigned long addr_hint,
> > diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> > index 5b663eca1f29..c49e6c2d1f07 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> > @@ -1818,18 +1818,24 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mf_dax_kill_procs);
> > #endif /* CONFIG_FS_DAX */
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
> > -/*
> > - * Struct raw_hwp_page represents information about "raw error page",
> > - * constructing singly linked list from ->_hugetlb_hwpoison field of folio.
> > - */
> > -struct raw_hwp_page {
> > - struct llist_node node;
> > - struct page *page;
> > -};
> >
> > -static inline struct llist_head *raw_hwp_list_head(struct folio *folio)
> > +struct raw_hwp_page *find_raw_hwp_page(struct folio *folio,
> > + struct page *subpage)
> > {
> > - return (struct llist_head *)&folio->_hugetlb_hwpoison;
> > + struct llist_node *t, *tnode;
> > + struct llist_head *raw_hwp_head = raw_hwp_list_head(folio);
> > + struct raw_hwp_page *hwp_page = NULL;
> > + struct raw_hwp_page *p;
> > +
> > + llist_for_each_safe(tnode, t, raw_hwp_head->first) {
>
> IIUC, in rare error cases a hugetlb page can be poisoned WITHOUT a
> raw_hwp_list. This is indicated by the hugetlb page specific flag
> RawHwpUnreliable or folio_test_hugetlb_raw_hwp_unreliable().
>
> Looks like this routine does not consider that case. Seems like it should
> always return the passed subpage if folio_test_hugetlb_raw_hwp_unreliable()
> is true?
Thanks for catching this. I wonder should this routine consider
RawHwpUnreliable or should the caller do.
find_raw_hwp_page now returns raw_hwp_page* in the llist entry to
caller (valid one at the moment), but once RawHwpUnreliable is set,
all the raw_hwp_page in the llist will be kfree(), and the returned
value becomes dangling pointer to caller (if the caller holds that
caller long enough). Maybe returning a bool would be safer to the
caller? If the routine returns bool, then checking RawHwpUnreliable
can definitely be within the routine.
Another option is, this routine simply doesn one thing: find a
raw_hwp_page in raw_hwp_list for a subpage. But the caller needs to 1)
test RawHwpUnreliable before calls into the routine, and 2) test
RawHwpUnreliable before access returned raw_hwp_page*. I think 2nd
option will be error-prone and the 1st option is a better one.
Maybe I am over-thinking. What do you think?
> --
> Mike Kravetz
>
> > + p = container_of(tnode, struct raw_hwp_page, node);
> > + if (subpage == p->page) {
> > + hwp_page = p;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return hwp_page;
> > }
> >
> > static unsigned long __folio_free_raw_hwp(struct folio *folio, bool move_flag)
> > --
> > 2.40.1.606.ga4b1b128d6-goog
> >
