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 kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E12DC25B74 for ; Thu, 16 May 2024 09:46:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id BBA446B00C1; Thu, 16 May 2024 05:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B6AF86B00E0; Thu, 16 May 2024 05:46:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A0C386B0119; Thu, 16 May 2024 05:46:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8038C6B00C1 for ; Thu, 16 May 2024 05:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B044A1733 for ; Thu, 16 May 2024 09:46:15 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82123778310.19.D42966B Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D242680016 for ; Thu, 16 May 2024 09:46:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=TO5NBGA4; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=LdlkeoH9; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=TO5NBGA4; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=LdlkeoH9; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of osalvador@suse.de designates 195.135.223.130 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=osalvador@suse.de; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=suse.de ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1715852772; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=5a6IJhenQzXpAbOqnOLMPNsXtvNu5dVA873wpwAdiZs=; b=5rrUxb8wy6eVfa1QQsxQrKMmiMctSFphwGu0ItjU0wE6AIDS0GFZJ8p6WhyUh5jWVjduTs aut76EIxTa4+qD1KNPyheqzXpT9sOH46Tjz3SFCvlsRfYjuW47Fy5+akTYKcN7KcilHt66 KzV1Hqy7T6VVT6zTGLGHGnJv10r2Llw= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1715852772; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=fM1/RqSIaB7rkmlWfAZVJvWJS4o06ZXsz4CifCb+git3kPKRQNKTInASsVJp5JtOayns7U k/OYEXnO8RVZrgH4N6ntKDD2EWhMLyONZxZ+VlThEbfg68s0EMsXmjbJVNfx808hnV+pB9 MNcOskRY/biYx3YNbg0rC9EM9+jJ6PU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=TO5NBGA4; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=LdlkeoH9; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=TO5NBGA4; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=LdlkeoH9; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of osalvador@suse.de designates 195.135.223.130 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=osalvador@suse.de; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=suse.de Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41C9F34741; Thu, 16 May 2024 09:46:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1715852769; h=from:from:reply-to: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=5a6IJhenQzXpAbOqnOLMPNsXtvNu5dVA873wpwAdiZs=; b=TO5NBGA4lW9jHLbhhAoS12g3bSv1mVBehSmgtJ+xVAu8m9OuOVJb2FdJl5u62XhaCI2iI3 Fv0lWkkNStAFWD1/DnXJBDcoUmDKuSA621t1lwjUw1dZHdLqE3zP9yVK1qFZbDJs2i8sDh u6U/yGBjzXqRRCfyGrn5NVD3LasCkAw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1715852769; h=from:from:reply-to: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=5a6IJhenQzXpAbOqnOLMPNsXtvNu5dVA873wpwAdiZs=; b=LdlkeoH9RK93OBFYiHWvmYaIjyZ0VWwlSv4VxCFICLNajWWIc6pZ6Wox4rJ0lBrqadO+IY TbQfc6OtwK51SSBA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1715852769; h=from:from:reply-to: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=5a6IJhenQzXpAbOqnOLMPNsXtvNu5dVA873wpwAdiZs=; b=TO5NBGA4lW9jHLbhhAoS12g3bSv1mVBehSmgtJ+xVAu8m9OuOVJb2FdJl5u62XhaCI2iI3 Fv0lWkkNStAFWD1/DnXJBDcoUmDKuSA621t1lwjUw1dZHdLqE3zP9yVK1qFZbDJs2i8sDh u6U/yGBjzXqRRCfyGrn5NVD3LasCkAw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1715852769; h=from:from:reply-to: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=5a6IJhenQzXpAbOqnOLMPNsXtvNu5dVA873wpwAdiZs=; b=LdlkeoH9RK93OBFYiHWvmYaIjyZ0VWwlSv4VxCFICLNajWWIc6pZ6Wox4rJ0lBrqadO+IY TbQfc6OtwK51SSBA== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C751513991; Thu, 16 May 2024 09:46:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id yLXWLeDVRWZLbgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 16 May 2024 09:46:08 +0000 Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 11:46:07 +0200 From: Oscar Salvador To: Jane Chu Cc: linmiaohe@huawei.com, nao.horiguchi@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mm/memory-failure: improve memory failure action_result messages Message-ID: References: <20240510062602.901510-1-jane.chu@oracle.com> <20240510062602.901510-4-jane.chu@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240510062602.901510-4-jane.chu@oracle.com> X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D242680016 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: 79613q9f5ux9fr9gumpcnjr8apuehzxk X-HE-Tag: 1715852771-918299 X-HE-Meta: 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 ZsdlsQgy jAPGHvats65fGqvYqJ8Tz60vcnhaq6EzDBlKPdOzsoI8N+8tW2sM2hWB+F8NA73zUlKfL/XP6kF5unlXb2RlrgfFBlkWF9180X09fUuVIF6SN+PchskCZCxSmTrKA5TS55+2gC33C1IYY67562GAEYsKn9rtXlBfO+d7QEglESWuvdhGycF0xCwRon6EJR/OGPUZQL4nDLEmTxvCNW/lGhNId4IT5AV7WPyXelnsBpBiWdi7oW0Vy+X4fl0Tx4O2GZyB2FJANAf8M2Wzguxx3wAHBcw3QF+Tt2fQzRlzL1cEmy7LKh4dwIIH+7Ukoz0WQBEc1p3EGPDk2TzXTj2lBAFOybw== 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: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:26:00AM -0600, Jane Chu wrote: > Added two explicit MF_MSG messages describing failure in get_hwpoison_page. > Attemped to document the definition of various action names, and made a few > adjustment to the action_result() calls. > > Signed-off-by: Jane Chu ... > +/* > + * MF_IGNORED - Either the m-f() handler did nothing to recover, or it did "or if it " > + * something, then caught in a race condition which renders the effort sort "it was caught" I would also add to MF_IGNORED that we mark the page hwpoisoned anyway. > @@ -1018,7 +1034,7 @@ static int me_unknown(struct page_state *ps, struct page *p) > { > pr_err("%#lx: Unknown page state\n", page_to_pfn(p)); > unlock_page(p); > - return MF_FAILED; > + return MF_IGNORED; > } I was confused because I saw you replaced all MF_MSG_UNKNOWN, so I wondered how we can end up here until I saw this is a catch-all in case we fail to make sense of the page->flags. While you are improving this, I would suggest to add a little comment above the function explaining how we can reach it. > /* > @@ -2055,6 +2071,7 @@ static int try_memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags, int *hugetlb > if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) { > folio = page_folio(p); > res = kill_accessing_process(current, folio_pfn(folio), flags); > + return action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_ALREADY_POISONED, MF_FAILED); I do not understand why are you doing this. First of all, why is this considered a failure? We did not fail this time, did we? We went right ahead and kill the process which was re-accessing the hwpoisoned page. Is that considered a failure? Second, you are know supressing -EHWPOISON with whatever action_result() will gives us, which judging from the actual code would be -EBUSY? I do not think that that is right, and we should be returning -EHWPOISON. Or whatever error code kill_accessing_process() gives us. > @@ -2231,6 +2248,7 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags) > res = kill_accessing_process(current, pfn, flags); > if (flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED) > put_page(p); > + action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_ALREADY_POISONED, MF_FAILED); This is not coherent with what you did in try_memory_failure_hugetlb for MF_MSG_ALREADY_POISONED, I __think__ that in there we should be doing the same as we do here. -- Oscar Salvador SUSE Labs