From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Naoya Horiguchi" <nao.horiguchi@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:09:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160518100949.GA17299@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <573C365B.6020807@suse.cz>
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:31:07AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 05/18/2016 11:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:42:55PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > > There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which
> > > taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to
> > > use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not quite getting this one. Minimally, instead of = __PG_HWPOISON, it
> > should have been (bad_flags & __PG_POISON). As Vlastimil already pointed
> > out, __PG_HWPOISON can be 0. What I'm not getting is why this fixes the
> > race. The current race is
> >
> > 1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> > 2. poison clears in parallel
> > 3. Check page->flag state in bad_page and trigger warning
> >
> > The code changes it to
> >
> > 1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> > 2. poison clears in parallel
> > 3. Check bad_flags and trigger warning
>
> I think you got step 3 here wrong. It's "skip the warning since we have set
> bad_flags to hwpoison and bad_flags didn't change due to parallel unpoison".
>
> Perhaps the question is why do we need to split the handling between
> check_new_page_bad() and bad_page() like this? It might have been different
> in the past, but seems like at this point we only look for hwpoison from
> check_new_page_bad(). But a cleanup can come later.
Thanks for clarification. check_new_page_bad() is the only function interested
in hwpoison flag, so we had better move the hwpoison related code in bad_page()
to check_new_page_bad().
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
---
>From c600b1ee6c36b3df6973f5365b4179c92f3c08e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:42:57 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON
case
Currently we check page->flags twice for "HWPoisoned" case of
check_new_page_bad(), which can cause a race with unpoisoning.
This race unnecessarily taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state".
check_new_page_bad() is the only caller of bad_page() which is interested
in __PG_HWPOISON, so let's move the hwpoison related code in bad_page()
to it.
Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 9 +++------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 5b269bc3eca7..59b938ddfb2d 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -522,12 +522,6 @@ static void bad_page(struct page *page, const char *reason,
static unsigned long nr_shown;
static unsigned long nr_unshown;
- /* Don't complain about poisoned pages */
- if (PageHWPoison(page)) {
- page_mapcount_reset(page); /* remove PageBuddy */
- return;
- }
-
/*
* Allow a burst of 60 reports, then keep quiet for that minute;
* or allow a steady drip of one report per second.
@@ -1654,6 +1648,9 @@ static void check_new_page_bad(struct page *page)
if (unlikely(page->flags & __PG_HWPOISON)) {
bad_reason = "HWPoisoned (hardware-corrupted)";
bad_flags = __PG_HWPOISON;
+ /* Don't complain about hwpoisoned pages */
+ page_mapcount_reset(page); /* remove PageBuddy */
+ return;
}
if (unlikely(page->flags & PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP)) {
bad_reason = "PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP flag set";
--
2.5.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-18 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-17 7:42 [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page Naoya Horiguchi
2016-05-18 7:30 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-18 9:21 ` Mel Gorman
2016-05-18 9:31 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-18 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2016-05-18 10:17 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2016-05-18 10:09 ` Naoya Horiguchi [this message]
2016-05-18 14:03 ` [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case Mel Gorman
2016-05-20 14:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
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=20160518100949.GA17299@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp \
--to=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=nao.horiguchi@gmail.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®