From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, linmiaohe@huawei.com, jane.chu@oracle.com
Cc: kernel@pankajraghav.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mcgrof@kernel.org, nao.horiguchi@gmail.com,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>,
Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>, Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mm/huge_memory: preserve PG_has_hwpoisoned if a folio is split to >0 order
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 22:09:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d3d05898-5530-4990-9d61-8268bd483765@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251022033531.389351-2-ziy@nvidia.com>
On 22.10.25 05:35, Zi Yan wrote:
> folio split clears PG_has_hwpoisoned, but the flag should be preserved in
> after-split folios containing pages with PG_hwpoisoned flag if the folio is
> split to >0 order folios. Scan all pages in a to-be-split folio to
> determine which after-split folios need the flag.
>
> An alternatives is to change PG_has_hwpoisoned to PG_maybe_hwpoisoned to
> avoid the scan and set it on all after-split folios, but resulting false
> positive has undesirable negative impact. To remove false positive, caller
> of folio_test_has_hwpoisoned() and folio_contain_hwpoisoned_page() needs to
> do the scan. That might be causing a hassle for current and future callers
> and more costly than doing the scan in the split code. More details are
> discussed in [1].
>
> It is OK that current implementation does not do this, because memory
> failure code always tries to split to order-0 folios and if a folio cannot
> be split to order-0, memory failure code either gives warnings or the split
> is not performed.
>
We're losing PG_has_hwpoisoned for large folios, so likely this should be
a stable fix for splitting anything to an order > 0 ?
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHbLzkoOZm0PXxE9qwtF4gKR=cpRXrSrJ9V9Pm2DJexs985q4g@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> ---
> mm/huge_memory.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index fc65ec3393d2..f3896c1f130f 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -3455,6 +3455,17 @@ bool can_split_folio(struct folio *folio, int caller_pins, int *pextra_pins)
> caller_pins;
> }
>
> +static bool page_range_has_hwpoisoned(struct page *first_page, long nr_pages)
> +{
> + long i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++)
> + if (PageHWPoison(first_page + i))
> + return true;
> +
> + return false;
Nit: I'd just do
static bool page_range_has_hwpoisoned(struct page *page, unsigned long nr_pages)
{
for (; nr_pages; page++, nr_pages--)
if (PageHWPoison(page))
return true;
}
return false;
}
> +}
> +
> /*
> * It splits @folio into @new_order folios and copies the @folio metadata to
> * all the resulting folios.
> @@ -3462,22 +3473,32 @@ bool can_split_folio(struct folio *folio, int caller_pins, int *pextra_pins)
> static void __split_folio_to_order(struct folio *folio, int old_order,
> int new_order)
> {
> + /* Scan poisoned pages when split a poisoned folio to large folios */
> + bool check_poisoned_pages = folio_test_has_hwpoisoned(folio) &&
> + new_order != 0;
I'd shorten this to "handle_hwpoison" or sth like that.
Maybe we can make it const and fit it into a single line.
Comparison with 0 is not required.
const bool handle_hwpoison = folio_test_has_hwpoisoned(folio) && new_order;
> long new_nr_pages = 1 << new_order;
> long nr_pages = 1 << old_order;
> long i;
>
> + folio_clear_has_hwpoisoned(folio);
> +
> + /* Check first new_nr_pages since the loop below skips them */
> + if (check_poisoned_pages &&
> + page_range_has_hwpoisoned(folio_page(folio, 0), new_nr_pages))
> + folio_set_has_hwpoisoned(folio);
> /*
> * Skip the first new_nr_pages, since the new folio from them have all
> * the flags from the original folio.
> */
> for (i = new_nr_pages; i < nr_pages; i += new_nr_pages) {
> struct page *new_head = &folio->page + i;
> -
> /*
> * Careful: new_folio is not a "real" folio before we cleared PageTail.
> * Don't pass it around before clear_compound_head().
> */
> struct folio *new_folio = (struct folio *)new_head;
> + bool poisoned_new_folio = check_poisoned_pages &&
> + page_range_has_hwpoisoned(new_head, new_nr_pages);
Is the temp variable really required? I'm afraid it is a bit ugly either way :)
I'd just move it into the if() below.
if (handle_hwpoison &&
page_range_has_hwpoisoned(new_head, new_nr_pages)
folio_set_has_hwpoisoned(new_folio);
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-22 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-22 3:35 [PATCH v3 0/4] Optimize folio split in memory failure Zi Yan
2025-10-22 3:35 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] mm/huge_memory: preserve PG_has_hwpoisoned if a folio is split to >0 order Zi Yan
2025-10-22 20:09 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2025-10-22 20:27 ` Zi Yan
2025-10-22 20:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-22 20:40 ` Zi Yan
2025-10-24 15:58 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-10-25 15:21 ` Zi Yan
2025-10-22 3:35 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] mm/huge_memory: add split_huge_page_to_order() Zi Yan
2025-10-22 20:13 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-24 16:11 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-10-22 3:35 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] mm/memory-failure: improve large block size folio handling Zi Yan
2025-10-22 20:17 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-22 20:29 ` Zi Yan
2025-10-24 18:11 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-10-22 3:35 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] mm/huge_memory: fix kernel-doc comments for folio_split() and related Zi Yan
2025-10-22 20:18 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-22 20:47 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] Optimize folio split in memory failure Zi Yan
2025-10-22 20:47 ` Zi Yan
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=d3d05898-5530-4990-9d61-8268bd483765@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=jane.chu@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel@pankajraghav.com \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=nao.horiguchi@gmail.com \
--cc=npache@redhat.com \
--cc=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.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