From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (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 AEC32387 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:13:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706231637; cv=none; b=GlK9t1Jh0q9DrlSh0moy8yO2k9URX1kamh09gAqz/KTq122zTPXbDaY4nKlm0yXzbkkpASJqvxqyPI9HpMltIxZJsuuXGFv3duVxOR7/t38heXv6KsOnnsa9WifcZLz0zzEDapV02fRJkSJiabUc8hA4MvUqCxcwoXRUz0gL6Us= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706231637; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kmX3SsIXx+Kjg1bu6KkGogcgnTNWWkTnm48itEw9niU=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Z7tjFTjeXx3v6yKeoedS5ufpQulpOKy3A/hjxoeeLZa8JIBjyIBX0l05v7WvouOGYHfowoYTMC0L80d4pd5ElrNji8du7ihmmoLXWcTBOFg0Iax/ow8oo1/buI/JuO+zXpFwRivNhaV3CogFxdO6oRs1qrCY0aT+KWTcSFT2MRQ= 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; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 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 Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.48]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TLfnW06SWzsWZs; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:12:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.192.104.244]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEA4818007A; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:13:51 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.173.135.154] (10.173.135.154) by canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.244) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:13:51 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/memory-failure: fix crash in split_huge_page_to_list from soft_offline_page To: Matthew Wilcox CC: , , , References: <20240124084014.1772906-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> <6d3f4822-8bc1-1551-b088-0a6d4c13f049@huawei.com> From: Miaohe Lin Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:13:51 +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: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) To canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.244) On 2024/1/25 22:22, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 07:53:25PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> On 2024/1/24 21:15, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>> Call Trace: >>>> >>>> ? die+0x32/0x90 >>>> ? do_trap+0xde/0x110 >>>> ? folio_memcg+0xaf/0xd0 >>>> ? do_error_trap+0x60/0x80 >>>> ? folio_memcg+0xaf/0xd0 >>>> ? exc_invalid_op+0x53/0x70 >>>> ? folio_memcg+0xaf/0xd0 >>>> ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 >>>> ? folio_memcg+0xaf/0xd0 >>>> ? folio_memcg+0xae/0xd0 >>> >>> I might trim these ? lines out of the backtrace ... >> >> Do you mean make backtrace looks like something below? >> >> Call Trace: >> >> split_huge_page_to_list+0x4d/0x1380 >> ? sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x80 >> try_to_split_thp_page+0x3a/0xf0 >> soft_offline_page+0x1ea/0x8a0 >> soft_offline_page_store+0x52/0x90 >> kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x118/0x1b0 >> vfs_write+0x30b/0x430 >> ksys_write+0x5e/0xe0 >> do_syscall_64+0xb0/0x1b0 >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6d/0x75 >> RIP: 0033:0x7f6c60d14697 > > Yes. I'd trim the sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x80 line too. > These lines aren't actually part of the call trace. They're addresses > that the unwinder found on the stack but don't actually fit the call > trace. It puts them in in case they're helpful, but marks them with a ? > to indicate that they're probably not part of the call trace. I see. Many thanks for your explanation. Will update backtrace in next version. Thanks.