Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/memory-failure: send SIGBUS in the event of thp split fail

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/8/2024 1:08 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:

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 think you caught a bug in my code, thanks!

How about moving put_page() outside try_to_split_thp_page() ?


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?

I took a clue from kill_accessing_process() which is invoked only if MF_ACTION_REQUIRED is set.

The usual code path for delivery signal is

if page-is-dirty or MF_MUST_KILL-is-set or umap-failed, then

- send SIGKILL if vaddr is -EFAULT

- send SIGBUS with BUS_MCEERR_AR if MF_ACTION_REQUIRED is set

- send SIGBUS with BUS_MCEERR_AO if MF_ACTION_REQUIRED is not set and process elected for MCE-early-kill

So, if kill_procs_now() is invoked only if MF_ACTION_REQUIRED (as it is in the patch), one can argue that

the MCE-early-kill request is not honored which deviates from the existing behavior.

Perhaps I should remove the

+ if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) {

check.

thanks!

-jane




Thanks.
.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux