On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 06-12-18 05:21:38, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:57:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 05-12-18 13:29:18, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > After some more thinking I am not really sure the above reasoning is
> > > > still true with the current upstream kernel. Maybe I just managed to
> > > > confuse myself so please hold off on this patch for now. Testing by
> > > > Oscar has shown this patch is helping but the changelog might need to be
> > > > updated.
> > >
> > > OK, so Oscar has nailed it down and it seems that 4.4 kernel we have
> > > been debugging on behaves slightly different. The underlying problem is
> > > the same though. So I have reworded the changelog and added "just in
> > > case" PageLRU handling. Naoya, maybe you have an argument that would
> > > make this void for current upstream kernels.
> >
> > The following commit (not in 4.4.x stable tree) might explain the
> > difference you experienced:
> >
> > commit 286c469a988fbaf68e3a97ddf1e6c245c1446968
> > Author: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed May 3 14:56:22 2017 -0700
> >
> > mm: hwpoison: call shake_page() after try_to_unmap() for mlocked page
> >
> > This commit adds shake_page() for mlocked pages to make sure that the target
> > page is flushed out from LRU cache. Without this shake_page(), subsequent
> > delete_from_lru_cache() (from me_pagecache_clean()) fails to isolate it and
> > the page will finally return back to LRU list. So this scenario leads to
> > "hwpoisoned by still linked to LRU list" page.
>
> OK, I see. So does that mean that the LRU handling is no longer needed
> and there is a guanratee that all kernels with the above commit cannot
> ever get an LRU page?
Theoretically no such gurantee, because try_to_unmap() doesn't have a
guarantee of success and then memory_failure() returns immediately
when hwpoison_user_mappings fails.
Or the following code (comes after hwpoison_user_mappings block) also implies
that the target page can still have PageLRU flag.
/*
* Torn down by someone else?
*/
if (PageLRU(p) && !PageSwapCache(p) && p->mapping == NULL) {
action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_TRUNCATED_LRU, MF_IGNORED);
res = -EBUSY;
goto out;
}
So I think it's OK to keep "if (WARN_ON(PageLRU(page)))" block in
current version of your patch.
Feel free to add my ack.
Acked-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
