On 2012/12/10 19:39, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:16:50PM +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 <qiuxi...@huawei.com> 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
>>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.
>>
>
> Hi Xishi,
>
> HWPoison delays any action on buddy allocator pages, handling can be safely
> postponed
> until a later time when the page might be referenced. By delaying, some
> transient errors
> may not reoccur or may be irrelevant.
>
> Regards,
> Wanpeng Li
>
Hi Wanpeng, thanks for your explanation.
One more question, can we add a list_head to manager the poisoned pages? I find
ia64
has the array which named "static struct page *page_isolate[MAX_PAGE_ISOLATE]".
Andrew, what do you think?
Thanks
Xishi Qiu
>>>>
>>>> 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
