On 2024/5/7 4:26, Jane Chu wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 12:00 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>
>> On 2024/5/2 7:24, Jane Chu wrote:
>>> When handle hwpoison in a GUP longterm pin'ed thp page,
>>> try_to_split_thp_page() will fail. And at this point, there is little else
>>> the kernel could do except sending a SIGBUS to the user process, thus
>>> give it a chance to recover.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Thanks for your patch. Some comments below.
>>
>>> ---
>>> mm/memory-failure.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
>>> index 7fcf182abb96..67f4d24a98e7 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
>>> @@ -2168,6 +2168,37 @@ static int memory_failure_dev_pagemap(unsigned long pfn, int flags,
>>> return rc;
>>> }
>>> +/*
>>> + * The calling condition is as such: thp split failed, page might have
>>> + * been GUP longterm pinned, not much can be done for recovery.
>>> + * But a SIGBUS should be delivered with vaddr provided so that the user
>>> + * application has a chance to recover. Also, application processes'
>>> + * election for MCE early killed will be honored.
>>> + */
>>> +static int kill_procs_now(struct page *p, unsigned long pfn, int flags,
>>> + struct page *hpage)
>>> +{
>>> + struct folio *folio = page_folio(hpage);
>>> + LIST_HEAD(tokill);
>>> + int res = -EHWPOISON;
>>> +
>>> + /* deal with user pages only */
>>> + if (PageReserved(p) || PageSlab(p) || PageTable(p) || PageOffline(p))
>>> + res = -EBUSY;
>>> + if (!(PageLRU(hpage) || PageHuge(p)))
>>> + res = -EBUSY;
>> Above checks seems unneeded. We already know it's thp?
>
> Agreed.
>
> I lifted these checks from hwpoison_user_mapping() with a hope to make kill_procs_now() more generic,
>
> such as, potentially replacing kill_accessing_processes() for re-accessing hwpoisoned page.
>
> But I backed out at last, due to concerns that my tests might not have covered sufficient number of scenarios.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + if (res == -EHWPOISON) {
>>> + collect_procs(folio, p, &tokill, flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED);
>>> + kill_procs(&tokill, true, pfn, flags);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)
>>> + put_page(p);
>> This if block is broken. put_page() has been done when try_to_split_thp_page() fails?
>
> put_page() has not been done if try_to_split_thp_page() fails, and I think it should.
In try_to_split_thp_page(), if split_huge_page fails, i.e. ret != 0, put_page() is called. See below:
static int try_to_split_thp_page(struct page *page)
{
int ret;
lock_page(page);
ret = split_huge_page(page);
unlock_page(page);
if (unlikely(ret))
put_page(page);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
return ret;
}
Or am I miss something?
>
> I will revise the code so that put_page() is called regardless MF_ACTION_REQUIRED is set or not.
>
>>
>>> +
>> action_result is missing?
>
> Indeed, action_result() isn't always called, referring to the re-accessing hwpoison scenarios.
>
> In this case, I think the reason is that, we just killed the process and there is nothing
>
> else to do or to report.
>
>>
>>> + return res;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> * memory_failure - Handle memory failure of a page.
>>> * @pfn: Page Number of the corrupted page
>>> @@ -2297,6 +2328,11 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
>>> */
>>> SetPageHasHWPoisoned(hpage);
>>> if (try_to_split_thp_page(p) < 0) {
>> Should hwpoison_filter() be called in this case?
> Yes, it should. I will add the hwpoison_filter check.
>>
>>> + if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) {
Only in MF_ACTION_REQUIRED case, SIGBUS is sent to processes when thp split failed. Any reson under it?
Thanks.
.
