Re: [PATCH v4 8/10] mm/hwpoison: fix memory failure still hold reference count after unpoison empty zero page

[Wanpeng Li <liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Hi Naoya,
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 08:12:29PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>Hi Wanpeng,
>
>On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 07:26:04AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Hi Naoya,
>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:45:37AM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>> >On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 04:46:12PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> >> madvise hwpoison inject will poison the read-only empty zero page if there is 
>> >> no write access before poison. Empty zero page reference count will be increased 
>> >> for hwpoison, subsequent poison zero page will return directly since page has
>> >> already been set PG_hwpoison, however, page reference count is still increased 
>> >> by get_user_pages_fast. The unpoison process will unpoison the empty zero page 
>> >> and decrease the reference count successfully for the fist time, however, 
>> >> subsequent unpoison empty zero page will return directly since page has already 
>> >> been unpoisoned and without decrease the page reference count of empty zero page.
>> >> This patch fix it by decrease page reference count for empty zero page which has 
>> >> already been unpoisoned and page count > 1.
>> >
>> >I guess that fixing on the madvise side looks reasonable to me, because this
>> >refcount mismatch happens only when we poison with madvise(). The root cause
>> >is that we can get refcount multiple times on a page, even if memory_failure()
>> >or soft_offline_page() can do its work only once.
>> >
>> 
>> I think this just happen in read-only before poison case against empty
>> zero page. 
>
>OK. I agree.
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>> 
>> I see you have already merged the patch, which method you prefer? 
>>
>> >How about making madvise_hwpoison() put a page and return immediately
>> >(without calling memory_failure() or soft_offline_page()) when the page
>> >is already hwpoisoned? 
>> >I hope it also helps us avoid meaningless printk flood.
>> >
>> 
>> Btw, Naoya, how about patch 10/10, any input are welcome! ;-)
>
>No objection if you (and Andrew) decide to go with current approach.

Andrew prefer your method, I will resend the patch w/ your suggested-by. ;-)

>But I think that if we shift to fix this problem in madvise(),
>we don't need 10/10 any more. So it looks simpler to me.

I don't think it's same issue. There is just one page in my test case.
#define PAGES_TO_TEST 1
If I miss something?

Regards,
Wanpeng Li 

>
>Thanks,
>Naoya Horiguchi

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>