From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B098E001A for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id e17so1275312edr.7 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c19si2889577edb.397.2019.01.23.10.37.37 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:37:38 -0800 (PST) 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> <5c775aa9-ea57-dea7-6083-c1e3fc160b29@arm.com> <20190122105143.GB26587@zn.tnic> From: James Morse Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:37:32 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190122105143.GB26587@zn.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Xie XiuQi , 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 Boris, On 22/01/2019 10:51, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 07:15:13PM +0000, James Morse wrote: >> What happens if we miss MF_ACTION_REQUIRED? > > AFAICU, the logic is to force-send a signal to the user process, i.e., > force_sig_info() which cannot be ignored. IOW, an "enlightened" process > would know how to do recovery action from a memory error. > > VS the action optional thing which you can handle at your leisure. > So the question boils down to what kind of severity do the errors > reported through SEA have? I mean, if the hw would go the trouble to do > the synchronous reporting, then something important must've happened and > it wants us to know about it and handle it. Before v8.2 we assumed these were fatal for the thread, it couldn't make progress. Since v8.2 we get a value from the CPU, the severity values are, (the flippant summary is obviously mine!): * Recoverable: "You're about to step in it, fix it or die" * Uncontainable: "It was here, but it escaped, we dont know where it went, panic!" * Restartable/Corrected: "its fine, pretend this didn't happen" Firmware should duplicate these values into the CPER severity fields. >> 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 miss MF_ACTION_REQUIRED, the page still gets unmapped from user-space, and user-space gets an AO signal. With this patch it takes that signal before it continues. If it ignores it, the access gets a translation-fault->EHWPOISON->AR signal from the arch code. ... so missing the flag gives us an extra signal. I'm not convinced this results in any observable difference. >> 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. > > Right, and we do all kinds of severity mapping there aka ghes_severity() > so that'll be a good start, methinks. The options are those 'aborts' in the memory error. These must have been a result of some request. If we get a CPU error structure as part of the same block, it may have a cache/bus error structure, which has a precise bit that tells us whether this is a co-incidence. (but linux doesn't support any of those structures today) Thanks, James