From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Longlong Xia <xialonglong2025@163.com>,
linmiaohe@huawei.com, lance.yang@linux.dev
Cc: markus.elfring@web.de, nao.horiguchi@gmail.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com,
qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com, xu.xin16@zte.com.cn,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Longlong Xia <xialonglong@kylinos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/ksm: recover from memory failure on KSM page by migrating to healthy duplicate
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 10:44:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a675d644-38d0-43d7-be42-8bc3753c74ee@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251016101813.484565-2-xialonglong2025@163.com>
On 16.10.25 12:18, Longlong Xia wrote:
> From: Longlong Xia <xialonglong@kylinos.cn>
>
> When a hardware memory error occurs on a KSM page, the current
> behavior is to kill all processes mapping that page. This can
> be overly aggressive when KSM has multiple duplicate pages in
> a chain where other duplicates are still healthy.
>
> This patch introduces a recovery mechanism that attempts to
> migrate mappings from the failing KSM page to a newly
> allocated KSM page or another healthy duplicate already
> present in the same chain, before falling back to the
> process-killing procedure.
>
> The recovery process works as follows:
> 1. Identify if the failing KSM page belongs to a stable node chain.
> 2. Locate a healthy duplicate KSM page within the same chain.
> 3. For each process mapping the failing page:
> a. Attempt to allocate a new KSM page copy from healthy duplicate
> KSM page. If successful, migrate the mapping to this new KSM page.
> b. If allocation fails, migrate the mapping to the existing healthy
> duplicate KSM page.
> 4. If all migrations succeed, remove the failing KSM page from the chain.
> 5. Only if recovery fails (e.g., no healthy duplicate found or migration
> error) does the kernel fall back to killing the affected processes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Longlong Xia <xialonglong@kylinos.cn>
> ---
> mm/ksm.c | 246 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 246 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/ksm.c b/mm/ksm.c
> index 160787bb121c..9099bad1ab35 100644
> --- a/mm/ksm.c
> +++ b/mm/ksm.c
> @@ -3084,6 +3084,246 @@ void rmap_walk_ksm(struct folio *folio, struct rmap_walk_control *rwc)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> +static struct ksm_stable_node *find_chain_head(struct ksm_stable_node *dup_node)
> +{
> + struct ksm_stable_node *stable_node, *dup;
> + struct rb_node *node;
> + int nid;
> +
> + if (!is_stable_node_dup(dup_node))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + for (nid = 0; nid < ksm_nr_node_ids; nid++) {
> + node = rb_first(root_stable_tree + nid);
> + for (; node; node = rb_next(node)) {
> + stable_node = rb_entry(node,
> + struct ksm_stable_node,
> + node);
Put that into a single line for readability, please.
You can also consider factoring out this inner loop in a helper function.
> +
> + if (!is_stable_node_chain(stable_node))
> + continue;
> +
> + hlist_for_each_entry(dup, &stable_node->hlist,
> + hlist_dup) {
Single line, or properly indent.
> + if (dup == dup_node)
> + return stable_node;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static struct folio *find_healthy_folio(struct ksm_stable_node *chain_head,
> + struct ksm_stable_node *failing_node,
> + struct ksm_stable_node **healthy_dupdup)
> +{
> + struct ksm_stable_node *dup;
> + struct hlist_node *hlist_safe;
> + struct folio *healthy_folio;
> +
> + if (!is_stable_node_chain(chain_head) || !is_stable_node_dup(failing_node))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + hlist_for_each_entry_safe(dup, hlist_safe, &chain_head->hlist, hlist_dup) {
> + if (dup == failing_node)
> + continue;
> +
> + healthy_folio = ksm_get_folio(dup, KSM_GET_FOLIO_TRYLOCK);
> + if (healthy_folio) {
> + *healthy_dupdup = dup;
> + return healthy_folio;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static struct page *create_new_stable_node_dup(struct ksm_stable_node *chain_head,
> + struct folio *healthy_folio,
> + struct ksm_stable_node **new_stable_node)
> +{
> + int nid;
> + unsigned long kpfn;
> + struct page *new_page = NULL;
> +
> + if (!is_stable_node_chain(chain_head))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + new_page = alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | __GFP_ZERO);
> + if (!new_page)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + copy_highpage(new_page, folio_page(healthy_folio, 0));
> +
> + *new_stable_node = alloc_stable_node();
> + if (!*new_stable_node) {
> + __free_page(new_page);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&(*new_stable_node)->hlist);
> + kpfn = page_to_pfn(new_page);
> + (*new_stable_node)->kpfn = kpfn;
> + nid = get_kpfn_nid(kpfn);
> + DO_NUMA((*new_stable_node)->nid = nid);
> + (*new_stable_node)->rmap_hlist_len = 0;
> +
> + (*new_stable_node)->head = STABLE_NODE_DUP_HEAD;
> + hlist_add_head(&(*new_stable_node)->hlist_dup, &chain_head->hlist);
> + ksm_stable_node_dups++;
> + folio_set_stable_node(page_folio(new_page), *new_stable_node);
> + folio_add_lru(page_folio(new_page));
There seems to be a lot of copy-paste. For example, why no reuse
stable_node_chain_add_dup()?
Or why not try to reuse stable_tree_insert() in the first place?
Try to reuse or factor out instead of copy-pasting, please.
> +
> + return new_page;
> +}
> +
> +static int replace_failing_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct page *page,
> + struct page *kpage, unsigned long addr)
> +{
> + struct folio *kfolio = page_folio(kpage);
> + struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> + struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
> + pmd_t *pmd;
> + pte_t *ptep;
> + pte_t newpte;
> + spinlock_t *ptl;
> + int err = -EFAULT;
> + struct mmu_notifier_range range;
> +
> + pmd = mm_find_pmd(mm, addr);
> + if (!pmd)
> + goto out;
> +
> + mmu_notifier_range_init(&range, MMU_NOTIFY_CLEAR, 0, mm, addr,
> + addr + PAGE_SIZE);
> + mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
> +
> + ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> + if (!ptep)
> + goto out_mn;
> +
> + folio_get(kfolio);
> + folio_add_anon_rmap_pte(kfolio, kpage, vma, addr, RMAP_NONE);
> + newpte = mk_pte(kpage, vma->vm_page_prot);
> +
> + flush_cache_page(vma, addr, pte_pfn(ptep_get(ptep)));
> + ptep_clear_flush(vma, addr, ptep);
> + set_pte_at(mm, addr, ptep, newpte);
> +
> + folio_remove_rmap_pte(folio, page, vma);
> + if (!folio_mapped(folio))
> + folio_free_swap(folio);
> + folio_put(folio);
> +
> + pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
> + err = 0;
> +out_mn:
> + mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
> +out:
> + return err;
> +}
This is a lot of copy-paste from replace_page(). Isn't there a way to
avoid this duplication by unifying both functions in some way?
> +
> +static void migrate_to_target_dup(struct ksm_stable_node *failing_node,
> + struct folio *failing_folio,
> + struct folio *target_folio,
> + struct ksm_stable_node *target_dup)
> +{
> + struct ksm_rmap_item *rmap_item;
> + struct hlist_node *hlist_safe;
> + int err;
> +
> + hlist_for_each_entry_safe(rmap_item, hlist_safe, &failing_node->hlist, hlist) {
> + struct mm_struct *mm = rmap_item->mm;
> + unsigned long addr = rmap_item->address & PAGE_MASK;
Can be const.
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> +
> + if (!mmap_read_trylock(mm))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (ksm_test_exit(mm)) {
> + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + vma = vma_lookup(mm, addr);
> + if (!vma) {
> + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + if (!folio_trylock(target_folio)) {
Can't we leave the target folio locked the whole time? The caller
already locked it, why not keep it locked until we're done?
> + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + err = replace_failing_page(vma, &failing_folio->page,
> + folio_page(target_folio, 0), addr);
> + if (!err) {
> + hlist_del(&rmap_item->hlist);
> + rmap_item->head = target_dup;
> + hlist_add_head(&rmap_item->hlist, &target_dup->hlist);
> + target_dup->rmap_hlist_len++;
> + failing_node->rmap_hlist_len--;
> + }
> +
> + folio_unlock(target_folio);
> + mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> + }
> +
> +}
> +
> +static bool ksm_recover_within_chain(struct ksm_stable_node *failing_node)
> +{
> + struct folio *failing_folio = NULL;
> + struct ksm_stable_node *healthy_dupdup = NULL;
> + struct folio *healthy_folio = NULL;
> + struct ksm_stable_node *chain_head = NULL;
> + struct page *new_page = NULL;
> + struct ksm_stable_node *new_stable_node = NULL;
Only initialize what needs initialization (nothing in here?) and combine
where possible.
Like
struct folio *failing_folio, *healthy_folio;
> +
> + if (!is_stable_node_dup(failing_node))
> + return false;
> +
> + guard(mutex)(&ksm_thread_mutex);
> + failing_folio = ksm_get_folio(failing_node, KSM_GET_FOLIO_NOLOCK);
> + if (!failing_folio)
> + return false;
> +
> + chain_head = find_chain_head(failing_node);
> + if (!chain_head)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + healthy_folio = find_healthy_folio(chain_head, failing_node, &healthy_dupdup);
> + if (!healthy_folio) {
> + folio_put(failing_folio);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + new_page = create_new_stable_node_dup(chain_head, healthy_folio, &new_stable_node);
Why are you returning a page here and not a folio?
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-28 9:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-16 10:18 [PATCH v2 0/1] " Longlong Xia
2025-10-16 10:18 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] " Longlong Xia
2025-10-16 14:37 ` [PATCH v2] " Markus Elfring
2025-10-17 3:09 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] " kernel test robot
2025-10-23 11:54 ` Miaohe Lin
2025-10-28 7:54 ` Long long Xia
2025-10-29 6:40 ` Miaohe Lin
2025-10-29 7:12 ` Long long Xia
2025-10-30 2:56 ` Miaohe Lin
2025-10-28 9:44 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2025-11-03 15:15 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] mm/ksm: try " Longlong Xia
2025-11-03 15:16 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] mm/ksm: add helper to allocate and initialize stable node duplicates Longlong Xia
2025-11-03 15:16 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] mm/ksm: try recover from memory failure on KSM page by migrating to healthy duplicate Longlong Xia
2025-10-16 10:46 ` [PATCH v2 0/1] mm/ksm: " David Hildenbrand
2025-10-21 14:00 ` Long long Xia
2025-10-23 16:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-16 11:01 ` Markus Elfring
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=a675d644-38d0-43d7-be42-8bc3753c74ee@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=nao.horiguchi@gmail.com \
--cc=qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=xialonglong2025@163.com \
--cc=xialonglong@kylinos.cn \
--cc=xu.xin16@zte.com.cn \
/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