From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006C1C433FE for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 06:54:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64BEA6117A for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 06:54:41 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 64BEA6117A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0472F6B009E; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 02:54:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id F39006B00A0; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 02:54:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E0125940009; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 02:54:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0027.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.27]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D11426B009E for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 02:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE8C183594FE for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 06:54:40 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78694129920.21.91C23CE Received: from out2.migadu.com (out2.migadu.com [188.165.223.204]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4554F10000AA for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 06:54:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:54:32 +0900 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1634194478; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=N/aD5fWtoSotnmi+BFKZ86QWaol2dougMlY39ccGabg=; b=HRDs9CMbOaq5Jz299llyEDwwLkvDBBltsjUdXbjpqAfB13u56yrVQq2rx15S0W8fZ2bsFM BFuf8ueb0kdZNa1VIVOWCYefpxNDVyAGUbhMmPXwK+XzeTt5DqhCXFbbTHurRt4Z8Zu33v T8Z4oeCCl4NOzOUEzsrS8lvN2bYtztU= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Naoya Horiguchi To: Peter Xu Cc: Yang Shi , HORIGUCHI =?utf-8?B?TkFPWUEo5aCA5Y+jIOebtOS5nyk=?= , Hugh Dickins , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Matthew Wilcox , Oscar Salvador , Andrew Morton , Linux MM , Linux FS-devel Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 2/5] mm: filemap: check if THP has hwpoisoned subpage for PMD page fault Message-ID: <20211014065432.GB2017714@u2004> References: <20210930215311.240774-3-shy828301@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Migadu-Auth-User: naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4554F10000AA X-Stat-Signature: 5ur8mtm1hfoqf5wa773387rncsgphhp9 Authentication-Results: imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=HRDs9CMb; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev designates 188.165.223.204 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev X-HE-Tag: 1634194480-944205 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:01:33AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 07:48:39PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 3:10 PM Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:02:09AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 6:44 PM Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 08:55:26PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > > Another thing is I noticed soft_offline_in_use_page() will still ignore file > > > > > > backed split. I'm not sure whether it means we'd better also handle that case > > > > > > as well, so shmem thp can be split there too? > > > > > > > > > > Please ignore this paragraph - I somehow read "!PageHuge(page)" as > > > > > "PageAnon(page)"... So I think patch 5 handles soft offline too. > > > > > > > > Yes, exactly. And even though the split is failed (or file THP didn't > > > > get split before patch 5/5), soft offline would just return -EBUSY > > > > instead of calling __soft_offline_page->page_handle_poison(). So > > > > page_handle_poison() should not see THP at all. > > > > > > I see, so I'm trying to summarize myself on what I see now with the new logic.. > > > > > > I think the offline code handles hwpoison differently as it sets PageHWPoison > > > at the end of the process, IOW if anything failed during the offline process > > > the hwpoison bit is not set. > > > > > > That's different from how the memory failure path is handling this, as in that > > > case the hwpoison bit on the subpage is set firstly, e.g. before split thp. I > > > believe that's also why memory failure requires the extra sub-page-hwpoison bit > > > while offline code shouldn't need to: because for soft offline split happens > > > before setting hwpoison so we just won't ever see a "poisoned file thp", while > > > for memory failure it could happen, and the sub-page-hwpoison will be a temp > > > bit anyway only exist for a very short period right after we set hwpoison on > > > the small page but before we split the thp. > > > > > > Am I right above? > > > > Yeah, you are right. I noticed this too, only successfully migrated > > page is marked as hwpoison. But TBH I'm not sure why it does this way. > > My wild guess is that unlike memory failures, soft offline is best-effort. Say, > the data on the page is still consistent, so even if offline failed for some > reason we shouldn't stop the program from execution. That's not true for > memory failures via MCEs, afaict, as the execution could read/write wrong data > and that'll be a serious mistake, so we set hwpoison 1st there first before > doing anything else, making sure "this page is broken" message delivered and > user app won't run with risk. > > But yeah it'll be great if Naoya could help confirm that. Yes, these descriptions are totally correct, how PG_hwpoison flag is set is different between hwpoison/soft-offline mechanisms from the beginning. Thanks, Naoya Horiguchi