On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 19:16 +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2012/12/10 18:47, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 17:06 +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> >> On 2012/12/10 16:33, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:11:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:48:45 +0800
> >>>> Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On x86 platform, if we use "/sys/devices/system/memory/soft_offline_page" to offline a
> >>>>> free page twice, the value of mce_bad_pages will be added twice. So this is an error,
> >>>>> since the page was already marked HWPoison, we should skip the page and don't add the
> >>>>> value of mce_bad_pages.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> $ cat /proc/meminfo | grep HardwareCorrupted
> >>>>>
> >>>>> soft_offline_page()
> >>>>> get_any_page()
> >>>>> atomic_long_add(1, &mce_bad_pages)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> >>>>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> >>>>> @@ -1582,8 +1582,11 @@ int soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> >>>>> return ret;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> done:
> >>>>> - atomic_long_add(1, &mce_bad_pages);
> >>>>> - SetPageHWPoison(page);
> >>>>> /* keep elevated page count for bad page */
> >>>>> + if (!PageHWPoison(page)) {
> >>>>> + atomic_long_add(1, &mce_bad_pages);
> >>>>> + SetPageHWPoison(page);
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> return ret;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> A few things:
> >>>>
> >>>> - soft_offline_page() already checks for this case:
> >>>>
> >>>> if (PageHWPoison(page)) {
> >>>> unlock_page(page);
> >>>> put_page(page);
> >>>> pr_info("soft offline: %#lx page already poisoned\n", pfn);
> >>>> return -EBUSY;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> so why didn't this check work for you?
> >>>>
> >>>> Presumably because one of the earlier "goto done" branches was
> >>>> taken. Which one, any why?
> >>>>
> >>>> This function is an utter mess. It contains six return points
> >>>> randomly intermingled with three "goto done" return points.
> >>>>
> >>>> This mess is probably the cause of the bug you have observed. Can
> >>>> we please fix it up somehow? It *seems* that the design (lol) of
> >>>> this function is "for errors, return immediately. For success, goto
> >>>> done". In which case "done" should have been called "success". But
> >>>> if you just look at the function you'll see that this approach didn't
> >>>> work. I suggest it be converted to have two return points - one for
> >>>> the success path, one for the failure path. Or something.
> >>>>
> >>>> - soft_offline_huge_page() is a miniature copy of soft_offline_page()
> >>>> and might suffer the same bug.
> >>>>
> >>>> - A cleaner, shorter and possibly faster implementation is
> >>>>
> >>>> if (!TestSetPageHWPoison(page))
> >>>> atomic_long_add(1, &mce_bad_pages);
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Andrew,
> >>>
> >>> Since hwpoison bit for free buddy page has already be set in get_any_page,
> >>> !TestSetPageHWPoison(page) will not increase mce_bad_pages count even for
> >>> the first time.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Wanpeng Li
> >>>
> >>
> >> The poisoned page is isolated in bad_page(), I wonder whether it could be isolated
> >> immediately in soft_offline_page() and memory_failure()?
> >>
> >> buffered_rmqueue()
> >> prep_new_page()
> >> check_new_page()
> >> bad_page()
> >
> > Do you mean else if(is_free_buddy_page(p)) branch is redundancy?
> >
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> get_any_page() -> "else if(is_free_buddy_page(p))" branch is *not* redundancy.
>
> It is another topic, I mean since the page is poisoned, so why not isolate it
What topic? I still can't figure out when this branch can be executed
since hwpoison inject path can't poison free buddy pages.
> from page buddy alocator in soft_offline_page() rather than in check_new_page().
>
> I find soft_offline_page() only migrate the page and mark HWPoison, the poisoned
> page is still managed by page buddy alocator.
>
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Xishi Qiu
> >>
> >>>> - We have atomic_long_inc(). Use it?
> >>>>
> >>>> - Why do we have a variable called "mce_bad_pages"? MCE is an x86
> >>>> concept, and this code is in mm/. Lights are flashing, bells are
> >>>> ringing and a loudspeaker is blaring "layering violation" at us!
> >>>>
>
>
--
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>