在 2024/2/3 6:46, Luck, Tony 写道:
Now, since you're explaining things today :) pls explain to me what this patchset is all about? You having reviewed patch 3 and all? Why is this pattern: if (copy_mc_user_highpage(dst, src, addr, vma)) { memory_failure_queue(page_to_pfn(src), 0); not good anymore? Or is the goal here to poison straight from the #MC handler and not waste time and potentially get another #MC while memory_failure_queue() on the source address is done? Or something completely different?See the comment above memory_failure_queue() * The function is primarily of use for corruptions that * happen outside the current execution context (e.g. when * detected by a background scrubber) In the copy_mc_user_highpage() case the fault happens in the current execution context. So scheduling someone else to handle it at some future point is risky. Just deal with it right away. -Tony
The goal of this patch: When #MC is triggered by copy_mc_user_highpage(), #MC is directly processed in the synchronously triggered do_machine_check() -> kill_me_never() -> memory_failure(). And the current handling is to call memory_failure_queue() -> schedule_work_on() in the execution context, I think that's what "scheduling someone else to handle it at some future point is risky." Thanks. Tong.
