From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@gmail.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: memory_hotplug: check hwpoisoned page firstly in do_migrate_range()
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 10:02:17 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3a69f67a-9331-78c7-cf6c-e066d786d059@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1e14d86d-0d17-41da-9400-16c9c6f93f8f@redhat.com>
On 2024/8/7 19:14, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 07.08.24 09:39, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2024/8/6 17:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 02.08.24 09:50, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2024/8/2 4:10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're not checking the head page here, will this work reliably for
>>>>>>> hugetlb? (I recall some difference in per-page hwpoison handling between
>>>>>>> hugetlb and THP due to the vmemmap optimization)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before this changes, the hwposioned hugetlb page won't try to unmap in
>>>>>> do_migrate_range(), we hope it already unmapped in memory_failure(), as
>>>>>> mentioned from comments, there maybe fail to unmap, so a new safeguard
>>>>>> to try to unmap it again here, but we don't need to guarantee it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for clarifying!
>>>>>
>>>>> But I do wonder if the PageHWPoison() is the right thing to do for hugetlb.
>>>>>
>>>>> IIUC, hugetlb requires folio_test_hwpoison() -- testing the head page
>>>>> not the subpage. Reason is that due to the vmemmap optimization we might
>>>>> not be able to modify subpages to set hwpoison.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, HVO is special(only head page with hwpoison), since we always want
>>>> to check head page here (next pfn = head_pfn + nr), so it might be
>>>> enough to only use PageHWpoison, but just in case, adding hwpoison check
>>>> for the head page,
>>>>
>>>> if (unlikely(PageHWPoison(page) || folio_test_hwpoison(folio)))
>>>
>>> I also do wonder if we have to check for large folios folio_test_has_hwpoison():
>>> if any subpage is poisoned, not just the current page.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO, below if condition [1] should be fine to check for any hwpoisoned folio:
>>
>> if (folio_test_hwpoison(folio) ||
>> (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_has_hwpoisoned(folio))) {
>>
>> 1. For raw pages, folio_test_hwpoison(folio) works fine.
>> 2. For thp (memory_failure fails to split it in first place), folio_test_has_hwpoisoned(folio) works fine.
>> 3. For hugetlb, we always have hwpoison flag set for folio. So folio_test_hwpoison(folio) works fine.
It seems I missed one corner case. When memory_failure meets an isolated thp, get_hwpoison_page() will return EIO and
thp won't have has_hwpoison flag set. Above pattern might not work with it. :(
>>
>> But folio might not be the right hwpoisoned page, i.e. subpages might be hwpoisoned instead.
>> Or am I miss something?
>
> Yes, but we can only migrate full folios, and if any subpage is poisoned we're in trouble and have to effectively force-unmap it?
Yes, I agree with you.
>
> At least that's my understanding :)
Thanks.
.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-09 2:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-25 1:16 [PATCH 0/4] mm: memory_hotplug: improve do_migrate_range() Kefeng Wang
2024-07-25 1:16 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm: memory-failure: add unmap_posioned_folio() Kefeng Wang
2024-07-30 10:20 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-31 4:46 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-07-25 1:16 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm: memory_hotplug: check hwpoisoned page firstly in do_migrate_range() Kefeng Wang
2024-07-30 10:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-31 5:09 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-08-01 20:10 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-02 7:50 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-08-06 9:29 ` David Hildenbrand
[not found] ` <1e6cccc5-fedc-8df6-1deb-16ceb52a4094@huawei.com>
[not found] ` <1e14d86d-0d17-41da-9400-16c9c6f93f8f@redhat.com>
2024-08-09 2:02 ` Miaohe Lin [this message]
2024-08-01 20:14 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-02 8:02 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-08-06 3:44 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-08-06 9:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-06 9:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-25 1:16 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm: migrate: add isolate_folio_to_list() Kefeng Wang
2024-07-26 14:21 ` kernel test robot
2024-07-27 7:56 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-07-30 10:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-25 1:16 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: memory_hotplug: unify Huge/LRU/non-LRU movable folio isolation Kefeng Wang
2024-07-30 10:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-07-31 5:13 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-08-01 20:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-01 20:23 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-02 8:39 ` Kefeng Wang
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=3a69f67a-9331-78c7-cf6c-e066d786d059@huawei.com \
--to=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nao.horiguchi@gmail.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.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