On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 00:07:53 -0500
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 02:01:54PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:33:13 -0400
> > Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Printing out the information about which file can be affected by a
> > > memory error in generic_error_remove_page() is helpful for user to
> > > estimate the impact of the error.
> > >
> > > Changelog v2:
> > > - dereference mapping->host after if (!mapping) check for robustness
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --- v3.7-rc3.orig/mm/truncate.c
> > > +++ v3.7-rc3/mm/truncate.c
> > > @@ -151,14 +151,20 @@ int truncate_inode_page(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page)
> > > */
> > > int generic_error_remove_page(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page)
> > > {
> > > + struct inode *inode;
> > > +
> > > if (!mapping)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > + inode = mapping->host;
> > > /*
> > > * Only punch for normal data pages for now.
> > > * Handling other types like directories would need more auditing.
> > > */
> > > - if (!S_ISREG(mapping->host->i_mode))
> > > + if (!S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> > > return -EIO;
> > > + pr_info("MCE %#lx: file info pgoff:%lu, inode:%lu, dev:%s\n",
> > > + page_to_pfn(page), page_index(page),
> > > + inode->i_ino, inode->i_sb->s_id);
> > > return truncate_inode_page(mapping, page);
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_error_remove_page);
> >
> > A couple of things.
> >
> > - I worry that if a hardware error occurs, it might affect a large
> > amount of memory all at the same time. For example, if a 4G memory
> > block goes bad, this message will be printed a million times?
>
> If the error on 4G memory block triggered by SRAO MCE and these 1M pages
> are all pagecache pages, the answer is yes.
Well that's bad.
> But I think that if it's a whole DIMM error, it should be reported by
> another type of MCE than SRAO, so printing a million times seems to be
> unlikely to happen.
"should be" and "unlikely" aren't very reassuring things to hear!
Emitting a million lines into syslog is pretty poor behaviour and
should be reliably avoided.
> > - hard-wiring "MCE" in here seems a bit of a layering violation?
> > What right does the generic, core .error_remove_page() implementation
> > have to assume that it was called because of an MCE?
>
> OK, we need not assume that. I change "MCE " prefix to more specific
> one like "Memory error ".
>
> > Many CPU types don't eveh have such a thing?
>
> No. At least currently, only SRAO MCE triggers memory_failure() and
> it's defined only on some newest highend models of Intel CPUs.
Again, your reply is full of assumptions about one particualar
implementation on one particular CPU. But this is generic,
cross-architecture code!
Now, it's pretty harmless to make these assumptions at this time. But
this new code will need to redone if/when other CPU types come along,
and because there's a printk in there, that rework will cause
user-visible changes in kernel behaviour. It would be best if we can
just avoid the problem on day one.
Maybe move the printk into x86-specific code? And just one printk
please - not a million!
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>