From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-f199.google.com (mail-oi1-f199.google.com [209.85.167.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D73D8E0018 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:15:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-oi1-f199.google.com with SMTP id e141so6669102oig.11 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:15:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s192si5022164ois.124.2018.12.10.11.15.23 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:15:23 -0800 (PST) From: James Morse Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 22/25] ACPI / APEI: Kick the memory_failure() queue for synchronous errors References: <20181203180613.228133-1-james.morse@arm.com> <20181203180613.228133-23-james.morse@arm.com> <9d153a07-aa7a-6e0c-3bd3-994a66f9639a@huawei.com> Message-ID: <5c775aa9-ea57-dea7-6083-c1e3fc160b29@arm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:15:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9d153a07-aa7a-6e0c-3bd3-994a66f9639a@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Xie XiuQi Cc: Borislav Petkov , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Marc Zyngier , Christoffer Dall , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Naoya Horiguchi , Rafael Wysocki , Len Brown , Tony Luck , Dongjiu Geng , Fan Wu , Wang Xiongfeng Hi Xie XiuQi, On 05/12/2018 02:02, Xie XiuQi wrote: > On 2018/12/4 2:06, James Morse wrote: >> memory_failure() offlines or repairs pages of memory that have been >> discovered to be corrupt. These may be detected by an external >> component, (e.g. the memory controller), and notified via an IRQ. >> In this case the work is queued as not all of memory_failure()s work >> can happen in IRQ context. >> >> If the error was detected as a result of user-space accessing a >> corrupt memory location the CPU may take an abort instead. On arm64 >> this is a 'synchronous external abort', and on a firmware first >> system it is replayed using NOTIFY_SEA. >> >> This notification has NMI like properties, (it can interrupt >> IRQ-masked code), so the memory_failure() work is queued. If we >> return to user-space before the queued memory_failure() work is >> processed, we will take the fault again. This loop may cause platform >> firmware to exceed some threshold and reboot when Linux could have >> recovered from this error. >> >> If a ghes notification type indicates that it may be triggered again >> when we return to user-space, use the task-work and notify-resume >> hooks to kick the relevant memory_failure() queue before returning >> @@ -407,7 +447,22 @@ static void ghes_handle_memory_failure(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int >> >> if (flags != -1) >> memory_failure_queue(pfn, flags); > > We may need to take MF_ACTION_REQUIRED flags for memory_failure() in SEA condition. Hmmm, I'd forgotten about the extra flags. They're only used by x86's do_machine_check(), which knows more about what is going on. I agree we do know it should be a 'MF_ACTION_REQUIRED' for Synchronous-external-abort, but I'd really like all the notifications to behave in the same way as we can't change which notification firmware uses. (This ghes_is_synchronous() affects when memory_failure() runs, not what it does.) What happens if we miss MF_ACTION_REQUIRED? Surely the page still gets unmapped as its PG_Poisoned, an AO signal may be pending, but if user-space touches the page it will get an AR signal. Is this just about removing an extra AO signal to user-space? If we do need this, I'd like to pick it up from the CPER records, as x86's NOTIFY_NMI looks like it covers both AO/AR cases. (as does NOTIFY_SDEI). The Master/Target abort or Invalid-address types in the memory-error-section CPER records look like the best bet. > And there is no return value check for memory_failure() in memory_failure_work_func(), > I'm not sure whether we need to check the return value. What would we do if it fails? The reasons look fairly broad, -EBUSY can mean "(page) still referenced by [..] users", 'thp split failed' or 'page already poisoned'. I don't think the behaviour or return-codes are consistent enough to use. > If the recovery fails here, we need to take other actions, such as force to send a SIGBUS signal. We don't do this today. If it fixes some mis-behaviour, and we can key it from something in the CPER records then I'm all ears! Thanks, James