From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Cc: linmiaohe@huawei.com, david@redhat.com, jane.chu@oracle.com,
kernel@pankajraghav.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mcgrof@kernel.org, nao.horiguchi@gmail.com,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>,
Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>, Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/huge_memory: preserve PG_has_hwpoisoned if a folio is split to >0 order
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 16:44:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <298f1a0c-a265-4b0c-a5a0-7f916878dcc7@lucifer.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251023030521.473097-1-ziy@nvidia.com>
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 11:05:21PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
> folio split clears PG_has_hwpoisoned, but the flag should be preserved in
> after-split folios containing pages with PG_hwpoisoned flag if the folio is
> split to >0 order folios. Scan all pages in a to-be-split folio to
> determine which after-split folios need the flag.
>
> An alternatives is to change PG_has_hwpoisoned to PG_maybe_hwpoisoned to
> avoid the scan and set it on all after-split folios, but resulting false
> positive has undesirable negative impact. To remove false positive, caller
> of folio_test_has_hwpoisoned() and folio_contain_hwpoisoned_page() needs to
> do the scan. That might be causing a hassle for current and future callers
> and more costly than doing the scan in the split code. More details are
> discussed in [1].
>
> This issue can be exposed via:
> 1. splitting a has_hwpoisoned folio to >0 order from debugfs interface;
> 2. truncating part of a has_hwpoisoned folio in
> truncate_inode_partial_folio().
>
> And later accesses to a hwpoisoned page could be possible due to the
> missing has_hwpoisoned folio flag. This will lead to MCE errors.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHbLzkoOZm0PXxE9qwtF4gKR=cpRXrSrJ9V9Pm2DJexs985q4g@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
> Fixes: c010d47f107f ("mm: thp: split huge page to any lower order pages")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
This seems reasonable to me and is a good spot (thanks!), so:
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> ---
> From V3[1]:
>
> 1. Separated from the original series;
> 2. Added Fixes tag and cc'd stable;
> 3. Simplified page_range_has_hwpoisoned();
> 4. Renamed check_poisoned_pages to handle_hwpoison, made it const, and
> shorten the statement;
> 5. Removed poisoned_new_folio variable and checked the condition
> directly.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251022033531.389351-2-ziy@nvidia.com/
>
> mm/huge_memory.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index fc65ec3393d2..5215bb6aecfc 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -3455,6 +3455,14 @@ bool can_split_folio(struct folio *folio, int caller_pins, int *pextra_pins)
> caller_pins;
> }
>
> +static bool page_range_has_hwpoisoned(struct page *page, long nr_pages)
> +{
> + for (; nr_pages; page++, nr_pages--)
> + if (PageHWPoison(page))
> + return true;
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * It splits @folio into @new_order folios and copies the @folio metadata to
> * all the resulting folios.
> @@ -3462,17 +3470,24 @@ bool can_split_folio(struct folio *folio, int caller_pins, int *pextra_pins)
> static void __split_folio_to_order(struct folio *folio, int old_order,
> int new_order)
> {
> + /* Scan poisoned pages when split a poisoned folio to large folios */
> + const bool handle_hwpoison = folio_test_has_hwpoisoned(folio) && new_order;
OK was going to mention has_hwpoisoned is FOLIO_SECOND_PAGE but looks like you
already deal with that :)
> long new_nr_pages = 1 << new_order;
> long nr_pages = 1 << old_order;
> long i;
>
> + folio_clear_has_hwpoisoned(folio);
OK so we start by clearing the HW poisoned flag for the folio as a whole, which
amounts to &folio->page[1] (which must be a tail page of course as new_order
tested above).
No other pages in the range should have this flag set as is a folio thing only.
But this, in practice, sets the has_hwpoisoned flag for the first split folio...
> +
> + /* Check first new_nr_pages since the loop below skips them */
> + if (handle_hwpoison &&
> + page_range_has_hwpoisoned(folio_page(folio, 0), new_nr_pages))
> + folio_set_has_hwpoisoned(folio);
> /*
> * Skip the first new_nr_pages, since the new folio from them have all
> * the flags from the original folio.
> */
> for (i = new_nr_pages; i < nr_pages; i += new_nr_pages) {
> struct page *new_head = &folio->page + i;
> -
NIT: Why are we removing this newline?
> /*
> * Careful: new_folio is not a "real" folio before we cleared PageTail.
> * Don't pass it around before clear_compound_head().
> @@ -3514,6 +3529,10 @@ static void __split_folio_to_order(struct folio *folio, int old_order,
> (1L << PG_dirty) |
> LRU_GEN_MASK | LRU_REFS_MASK));
>
> + if (handle_hwpoison &&
> + page_range_has_hwpoisoned(new_head, new_nr_pages))
> + folio_set_has_hwpoisoned(new_folio);
> +
...We then, for each folio which will be split, we check again and propagate to
each based on pages in range.
> new_folio->mapping = folio->mapping;
> new_folio->index = folio->index + i;
>
> @@ -3600,8 +3619,6 @@ static int __split_unmapped_folio(struct folio *folio, int new_order,
> int start_order = uniform_split ? new_order : old_order - 1;
> int split_order;
>
> - folio_clear_has_hwpoisoned(folio);
> -
> /*
> * split to new_order one order at a time. For uniform split,
> * folio is split to new_order directly.
> --
> 2.51.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-24 15:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-23 3:05 Zi Yan
2025-10-23 7:22 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-23 11:10 ` Pankaj Raghav
2025-10-23 17:20 ` Zi Yan
2025-10-23 17:40 ` Yang Shi
2025-10-24 2:08 ` Baolin Wang
2025-10-24 7:44 ` Miaohe Lin
2025-10-24 8:31 ` Lance Yang
2025-10-24 15:44 ` Lorenzo Stoakes [this message]
2025-10-25 15:30 ` Zi Yan
2025-10-27 15:31 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-10-31 2:19 ` Wei Yang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=298f1a0c-a265-4b0c-a5a0-7f916878dcc7@lucifer.local \
--to=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=jane.chu@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel@pankajraghav.com \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=nao.horiguchi@gmail.com \
--cc=npache@redhat.com \
--cc=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox