From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89EB622D7B0 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:24:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.227 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760174648; cv=none; b=T1XGvRm564/QvJYxicjnCSOeVUkeVdbUIznnN9T3gBWfC8lTk+WXWHRZY0DJ3wy7aFxjKzrSMbvgBY1l8EUEhVYz91Twh2sX8ILKSmKe+TMGOUZlqYsiOzIhhGTLiLULKRgwVkUFOqe1hkADXmHpXejToO+kxM30VZvhKo8VioM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760174648; c=relaxed/simple; bh=theDeGjlPPB9YhwdwCqYRk1QZMWDVFgXmSGijAh4r7s=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=bBXg/5G4UpP+DYBhQ9dADbQP13ta9OlKXEKzteYiq/MoShqfQBaSQRwNZWcPXovnkI3uUTPA8MIHOjChY/DmEykOk/bbMXqeCvJfrQJ4xbK9MkmtOk/mg7xBVa7/yDiOE16sUd9/leIoeczOQKo5NUVUfXog+FCf39h4Bu8VaiU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=5RBkcU/Q; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.227 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="5RBkcU/Q" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=Gh7NoH74T5YktqTUgVgDG2GLtcrYJJBzP7VQdRxnn28=; b=5RBkcU/QQUx0bJ2KJDufRRDtWJesq8Rq4MlITiAH5edFw0pihUjScgU/O2THm8abM9CYJJqBH vq5ps5XWnw3Cf4CxTPpG4laKzdVxPvPithlr1Y7mgdgToorkJi60m7p5GOqE0AP5Icn1ftx7wVd tkR+/Gk4waRrUjfbkLLzhq8= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.44]) by canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4ckJ7F12XmznTVB; Sat, 11 Oct 2025 17:23:05 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggemv706-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [10.3.19.33]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F799140123; Sat, 11 Oct 2025 17:23:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemq500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.235) by dggemv706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Sat, 11 Oct 2025 17:23:52 +0800 Received: from [10.173.125.37] (10.173.125.37) by kwepemq500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.235) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Sat, 11 Oct 2025 17:23:51 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] mm/ksm: Add recovery mechanism for memory failures To: Lance Yang CC: Longlong Xia , , , , , , , Longlong Xia , References: <20251009070045.2011920-1-xialonglong2025@163.com> <20251009070045.2011920-2-xialonglong2025@163.com> From: Miaohe Lin Message-ID: <55370eb6-9798-0f46-2301-d5f66528411b@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 17:23:51 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems500002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.17) To kwepemq500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.235) On 2025/10/11 15:52, Lance Yang wrote: > @Miaohe > > I'd like to raise a concern about a potential hardware failure :) Thanks for your thought. > > My tests show that if the shared zeropage (or huge zeropage) gets marked > with HWpoison, the kernel continues to install it for new mappings. > Surprisingly, it does not kill the accessing process ... Have you investigated the cause? If user space writes to shared zeropage, it will trigger COW and a new page will be installed. After that, reading the newly allocated page won't trigger memory error. In this scene, it does not kill the accessing process. > > The concern is, once the page is no longer zero-filled due to the hardware > failure, what will happen? Would this lead to silent data corruption for > applications that expect to read zeros? IMHO, once the page is no longer zero-filled due to the hardware failure, later any read will trigger memory error and memory_failure should handle that. Thanks. .