On 04/23/2018 12:21 PM, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Mahesh J Salgaonkar > <mah...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> From: Mahesh Salgaonkar <mah...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> The current code extracts the physical address for UE errors and then >> hooks it up into memory failure infrastructure. On successful extraction >> of physical address it wrongly sets "handled = 1" which means this UE error >> has been recovered. Since MCE handler gets return value as handled = 1, it >> assumes that error has been recovered and goes back to same NIP. This causes >> MCE interrupt again and again in a loop leading to hard lockup. >> >> Also, initialize phys_addr to ULONG_MAX so that we don't end up queuing >> undesired page to hwpoison. >> >> Without this patch we see: >> [ 1476.541984] Severe Machine check interrupt [Recovered] >> [ 1476.541985] NIP: [000000001002588c] PID: 7109 Comm: find >> [ 1476.541986] Initiator: CPU >> [ 1476.541987] Error type: UE [Load/Store] >> [ 1476.541988] Effective address: 00007fffd2755940 >> [ 1476.541989] Physical address: 000020181a080000 >> [...] >> [ 1476.542003] Severe Machine check interrupt [Recovered] >> [ 1476.542004] NIP: [000000001002588c] PID: 7109 Comm: find >> [ 1476.542005] Initiator: CPU >> [ 1476.542006] Error type: UE [Load/Store] >> [ 1476.542006] Effective address: 00007fffd2755940 >> [ 1476.542007] Physical address: 000020181a080000 >> [ 1476.542010] Severe Machine check interrupt [Recovered] >> [ 1476.542012] NIP: [000000001002588c] PID: 7109 Comm: find >> [ 1476.542013] Initiator: CPU >> [ 1476.542014] Error type: UE [Load/Store] >> [ 1476.542015] Effective address: 00007fffd2755940 >> [ 1476.542016] Physical address: 000020181a080000 >> [ 1476.542448] Memory failure: 0x20181a08: recovery action for dirty LRU >> page: Recovered >> [ 1476.542452] Memory failure: 0x20181a08: already hardware poisoned >> [ 1476.542453] Memory failure: 0x20181a08: already hardware poisoned >> [ 1476.542454] Memory failure: 0x20181a08: already hardware poisoned >> [ 1476.542455] Memory failure: 0x20181a08: already hardware poisoned >> [ 1476.542456] Memory failure: 0x20181a08: already hardware poisoned >> [ 1476.542457] Memory failure: 0x20181a08: already hardware poisoned >> [...] >> [ 1490.972174] Watchdog CPU:38 Hard LOCKUP >> >> After this patch we see: >> >> [ 325.384336] Severe Machine check interrupt [Not recovered] > > How did you test for this?
By injecting cache SUE using L2 FIR register (0x1001080c). > If the error was recovered, shouldn't the > process have gotten > a SIGBUS and we should have prevented further access as a part of the handling > (memory_failure()). Do we just need a MF_MUST_KILL in the flags? We hook it up to memory_failure() through a work queue and by the time work queue kicks in, the application continues to restart and hit same NIP again and again. Every MCE again hooks the same address to memory failure work queue and throws multiple recovered MCE messages for same address. Once the memory_failure() hwpoisons the page, application gets SIGBUS and then we are fine. But in case of UE in kernel space, if early machine_check handler "machine_check_early()" returns as recovered then machine_check_handle_early() queues up the MCE event and continues from NIP assuming it is safe causing a MCE loop. So, for UE in kernel we end up in hard lockup. > Why shouldn't we treat it as handled if we isolate the page? Yes we should, but I think not until the page is actually hwpoisioned OR until we send SIGBUS to process. > > Thanks, > Balbir Singh. >
