From: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
"nao.horiguchi@gmail.com" <nao.horiguchi@gmail.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, tianruidong@linux.alibaba.com,
tony.luck@intel.com, bp@alien8.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] mm/hwpoison: Fix incorrect "not recovered" report for recovered clean pages
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 21:55:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3820329d-20e3-49ee-a329-aac7393c6df3@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f116840-60df-c6d9-d7ff-dcf1dce7773f@huawei.com>
在 2025/2/12 16:09, Miaohe Lin 写道:
> On 2025/2/11 14:02, Shuai Xue wrote:
>> When an uncorrected memory error is consumed there is a race between
>> the CMCI from the memory controller reporting an uncorrected error
>> with a UCNA signature, and the core reporting and SRAR signature
>> machine check when the data is about to be consumed.
>>
>> If the CMCI wins that race, the page is marked poisoned when
>> uc_decode_notifier() calls memory_failure(). For dirty pages,
>> memory_failure() invokes try_to_unmap() with the TTU_HWPOISON flag,
>> converting the PTE to a hwpoison entry. However, for clean pages, the
>> TTU_HWPOISON flag is cleared, leaving the PTE unchanged and not converted
>> to a hwpoison entry. Consequently, for an unmapped dirty page, the PTE is
>> marked as a hwpoison entry allowing kill_accessing_process() to:
>>
>> - call walk_page_range() and return 1
>> - call kill_proc() to make sure a SIGBUS is sent
>> - return -EHWPOISON to indicate that SIGBUS is already sent to the process
>> and kill_me_maybe() doesn't have to send it again.
>>
>> Conversely, for clean pages where PTE entries are not marked as hwpoison,
>> kill_accessing_process() returns -EFAULT, causing kill_me_maybe() to send a
>> SIGBUS.
>>
>> Console log looks like this:
>>
>> Memory failure: 0x827ca68: corrupted page was clean: dropped without side effects
>> Memory failure: 0x827ca68: recovery action for clean LRU page: Recovered
>> Memory failure: 0x827ca68: already hardware poisoned
>> mce: Memory error not recovered
>>
>> To fix it, return -EHWPOISON if no hwpoison PTE entry is found, preventing
>> an unnecessary SIGBUS.
>
> Thanks for your patch.
>
>>
>> Fixes: 046545a661af ("mm/hwpoison: fix error page recovered but reported "not recovered"")
>> Signed-off-by: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>> mm/memory-failure.c | 5 ++---
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
>> index 995a15eb67e2..f9a6b136a6f0 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
>> @@ -883,10 +883,9 @@ static int kill_accessing_process(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long pfn,
>> (void *)&priv);
>> if (ret == 1 && priv.tk.addr)
>> kill_proc(&priv.tk, pfn, flags);
>> - else
>> - ret = 0;
>> mmap_read_unlock(p->mm);
>> - return ret > 0 ? -EHWPOISON : -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + return ret >= 0 ? -EHWPOISON : -EFAULT;
>
> IIUC, kill_accessing_process() is supposed to return -EHWPOISON to notify that SIGBUS is already
> sent to the process and kill_me_maybe() doesn't have to send it again. But with your change,
> kill_accessing_process() will return -EHWPOISON even if SIGBUS is not sent. Does this break
> the semantics of -EHWPOISON?
Yes, from the comment of kill_me_maybe(),
* -EHWPOISON from memory_failure() means that it already sent SIGBUS
* to the current process with the proper error info,
* -EOPNOTSUPP means hwpoison_filter() filtered the error event,
this patch break the comment.
But the defination of EHWPOISON is quite different from the comment.
#define EHWPOISON 133 /* Memory page has hardware error */
As for this issue, returning 0 or EHWPOISON can both prevent a SIGBUS signal
from being sent in kill_me_maybe().
Which way do you prefer?
>
> BTW I scanned the code of walk_page_range(). It seems with implementation of hwpoison_walk_ops
> walk_page_range() will only return 0 or 1, i.e. always >= 0. So kill_accessing_process() will always
> return -EHWPOISON if this patch is applied.
>
> Correct me if I miss something.
Yes, you are right. Let's count the cases one by one:
1. clean page: try_to_remap(!TTU_HWPOISON), walk_page_range() will return 0 and
we should not send sigbus in kill_me_maybe().
2. dirty page:
2.1 MCE wins race
CMCI:w/o Action Require MCE: w/ Action Require
TestSetPageHWPoison
TestSetPageHWPoison
return -EHWPOISON
try_to_unmap(TTU_HWPOISON)
kill_proc in hwpoison_user_mappings()
If MCE wins the race, because the flag of memory_fialure() called by CMCI is
not set as MF_ACTION_REQUIRED, everything goes well, kill_proc() will send
SIGBUS in hwpoison_user_mappings().
2.2 CMCI win
CMCI:w/o Action Require MCE: w/ Action Require
TestSetPageHWPoison
try_to_unmap(TTU_HWPOISON)
walk_page_range() return 1 due to hwpoison PTE entry
kill_proc in kill_accessing_process()
If the CMCI wins the race, we need to kill the process in
kill_accessing_process(). And if try_to_remap() success, everything goes well,
kill_proc() will send SIGBUS in kill_accessing_process().
But if try_to_remap() fails, the PTE entry will not be marked as hwpoison, and
walk_page_range() return 0 as case 1 clean page, NO SIGBUS will be sent.
In summary, hwpoison_walk_ops cannot distinguish between try_to_unmap failing
and causing the PTE entry not to be set to hwpoison, and a clean page that
originally does not have the PTE entry set to hwpoison.
+naoya for orginal patch intend.
Thanks.
Best Regard,
Shuai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-12 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-11 6:01 [PATCH v1 0/4] fmm/hwpoison: Fix regressions in memory failure handling Shuai Xue
2025-02-11 6:01 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] x86/mce: Collect error message for severities below MCE_PANIC_SEVERITY Shuai Xue
2025-02-11 16:51 ` Luck, Tony
2025-02-12 1:51 ` Shuai Xue
2025-02-11 6:01 ` [PATCH v1 2/4] x86/mce: dump error msg from severities Shuai Xue
2025-02-11 16:44 ` Luck, Tony
2025-02-14 9:29 ` Shuai Xue
2025-02-14 16:57 ` Luck, Tony
2025-02-11 6:01 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] x86/mce: add EX_TYPE_EFAULT_REG as in-kernel recovery context to fix copy-from-user operations regression Shuai Xue
2025-02-11 6:02 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] mm/hwpoison: Fix incorrect "not recovered" report for recovered clean pages Shuai Xue
2025-02-12 8:09 ` Miaohe Lin
2025-02-12 13:55 ` Shuai Xue [this message]
2025-02-13 3:20 ` Miaohe Lin
2025-02-13 6:59 ` Shuai Xue
2025-02-14 6:54 ` Miaohe Lin
2025-02-14 7:59 ` Shuai Xue
2025-02-14 16:51 ` Luck, Tony
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=3820329d-20e3-49ee-a329-aac7393c6df3@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nao.horiguchi@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tianruidong@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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