From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: ysxie@foxmail.com
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, mhocko@suse.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, guohanjun@huawei.com,
qiuxishi@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] HWPOISON: soft offlining for non-lru movable page
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:14:59 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170123051459.GB11763@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1484837943-21745-1-git-send-email-ysxie@foxmail.com>
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:59:03PM +0800, ysxie@foxmail.com wrote:
> From: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
>
> This patch is to extends soft offlining framework to support
> non-lru page, which already support migration after
> commit bda807d44454 ("mm: migrate: support non-lru movable page
> migration")
>
> When memory corrected errors occur on a non-lru movable page,
> we can choose to stop using it by migrating data onto another
> page and disable the original (maybe half-broken) one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> ---
> v2:
> delete function soft_offline_movable_page() and hanle non-lru movable
> page in __soft_offline_page() as Michal Hocko suggested.
>
> Any comment is more than welcome.
>
> mm/memory-failure.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index f283c7e..74be9e1 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -1527,7 +1527,8 @@ static int get_any_page(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> {
> int ret = __get_any_page(page, pfn, flags);
>
> - if (ret == 1 && !PageHuge(page) && !PageLRU(page)) {
> + if (ret == 1 && !PageHuge(page) &&
> + !PageLRU(page) && !__PageMovable(page)) {
__PageMovable without holding page_lock could be raced so need to check
if it's okay to miss some of pages offlining by the race.
When I read description of soft_offline_page, it seems to be okay.
Just wanted double check. :)
> /*
> * Try to free it.
> */
> @@ -1609,7 +1610,7 @@ static int soft_offline_huge_page(struct page *page, int flags)
>
> static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> {
> - int ret;
> + int ret = -1;
> unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
>
> /*
> @@ -1619,7 +1620,8 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> * so there's no race between soft_offline_page() and memory_failure().
> */
> lock_page(page);
> - wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> + if (PageLRU(page))
> + wait_on_page_writeback(page);
I doubt we need to add such limitation(i.e., Only LRU pages could be write-backed).
Do you have some reason to add that code?
> if (PageHWPoison(page)) {
> unlock_page(page);
> put_hwpoison_page(page);
> @@ -1630,7 +1632,8 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> * Try to invalidate first. This should work for
> * non dirty unmapped page cache pages.
> */
> - ret = invalidate_inode_page(page);
> + if (PageLRU(page))
> + ret = invalidate_inode_page(page);
Ditto.
> unlock_page(page);
> /*
> * RED-PEN would be better to keep it isolated here, but we
> @@ -1649,7 +1652,10 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> * Try to migrate to a new page instead. migrate.c
> * handles a large number of cases for us.
> */
> - ret = isolate_lru_page(page);
> + if (PageLRU(page))
> + ret = isolate_lru_page(page);
> + else
> + ret = !isolate_movable_page(page, ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE);
> /*
> * Drop page reference which is came from get_any_page()
> * successful isolate_lru_page() already took another one.
> @@ -1657,18 +1663,15 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> put_hwpoison_page(page);
> if (!ret) {
> LIST_HEAD(pagelist);
> - inc_node_page_state(page, NR_ISOLATED_ANON +
> + if (PageLRU(page))
isolate_lru_page removes PG_lru so this check will be false. Namely, happens
isolated count mismatch happens.
> + inc_node_page_state(page, NR_ISOLATED_ANON +
> page_is_file_cache(page));
> list_add(&page->lru, &pagelist);
> ret = migrate_pages(&pagelist, new_page, NULL, MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL,
> MIGRATE_SYNC, MR_MEMORY_FAILURE);
> if (ret) {
> - if (!list_empty(&pagelist)) {
> - list_del(&page->lru);
> - dec_node_page_state(page, NR_ISOLATED_ANON +
> - page_is_file_cache(page));
> - putback_lru_page(page);
> - }
> + if (!list_empty(&pagelist))
> + putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);
>
> pr_info("soft offline: %#lx: migration failed %d, type %lx\n",
> pfn, ret, page->flags);
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: <ysxie@foxmail.com>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>, <mhocko@suse.com>,
<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <vbabka@suse.cz>,
<guohanjun@huawei.com>, <qiuxishi@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] HWPOISON: soft offlining for non-lru movable page
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:14:59 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170123051459.GB11763@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1484837943-21745-1-git-send-email-ysxie@foxmail.com>
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:59:03PM +0800, ysxie@foxmail.com wrote:
> From: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
>
> This patch is to extends soft offlining framework to support
> non-lru page, which already support migration after
> commit bda807d44454 ("mm: migrate: support non-lru movable page
> migration")
>
> When memory corrected errors occur on a non-lru movable page,
> we can choose to stop using it by migrating data onto another
> page and disable the original (maybe half-broken) one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> ---
> v2:
> delete function soft_offline_movable_page() and hanle non-lru movable
> page in __soft_offline_page() as Michal Hocko suggested.
>
> Any comment is more than welcome.
>
> mm/memory-failure.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index f283c7e..74be9e1 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -1527,7 +1527,8 @@ static int get_any_page(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> {
> int ret = __get_any_page(page, pfn, flags);
>
> - if (ret == 1 && !PageHuge(page) && !PageLRU(page)) {
> + if (ret == 1 && !PageHuge(page) &&
> + !PageLRU(page) && !__PageMovable(page)) {
__PageMovable without holding page_lock could be raced so need to check
if it's okay to miss some of pages offlining by the race.
When I read description of soft_offline_page, it seems to be okay.
Just wanted double check. :)
> /*
> * Try to free it.
> */
> @@ -1609,7 +1610,7 @@ static int soft_offline_huge_page(struct page *page, int flags)
>
> static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> {
> - int ret;
> + int ret = -1;
> unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
>
> /*
> @@ -1619,7 +1620,8 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> * so there's no race between soft_offline_page() and memory_failure().
> */
> lock_page(page);
> - wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> + if (PageLRU(page))
> + wait_on_page_writeback(page);
I doubt we need to add such limitation(i.e., Only LRU pages could be write-backed).
Do you have some reason to add that code?
> if (PageHWPoison(page)) {
> unlock_page(page);
> put_hwpoison_page(page);
> @@ -1630,7 +1632,8 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> * Try to invalidate first. This should work for
> * non dirty unmapped page cache pages.
> */
> - ret = invalidate_inode_page(page);
> + if (PageLRU(page))
> + ret = invalidate_inode_page(page);
Ditto.
> unlock_page(page);
> /*
> * RED-PEN would be better to keep it isolated here, but we
> @@ -1649,7 +1652,10 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> * Try to migrate to a new page instead. migrate.c
> * handles a large number of cases for us.
> */
> - ret = isolate_lru_page(page);
> + if (PageLRU(page))
> + ret = isolate_lru_page(page);
> + else
> + ret = !isolate_movable_page(page, ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE);
> /*
> * Drop page reference which is came from get_any_page()
> * successful isolate_lru_page() already took another one.
> @@ -1657,18 +1663,15 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
> put_hwpoison_page(page);
> if (!ret) {
> LIST_HEAD(pagelist);
> - inc_node_page_state(page, NR_ISOLATED_ANON +
> + if (PageLRU(page))
isolate_lru_page removes PG_lru so this check will be false. Namely, happens
isolated count mismatch happens.
> + inc_node_page_state(page, NR_ISOLATED_ANON +
> page_is_file_cache(page));
> list_add(&page->lru, &pagelist);
> ret = migrate_pages(&pagelist, new_page, NULL, MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL,
> MIGRATE_SYNC, MR_MEMORY_FAILURE);
> if (ret) {
> - if (!list_empty(&pagelist)) {
> - list_del(&page->lru);
> - dec_node_page_state(page, NR_ISOLATED_ANON +
> - page_is_file_cache(page));
> - putback_lru_page(page);
> - }
> + if (!list_empty(&pagelist))
> + putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);
>
> pr_info("soft offline: %#lx: migration failed %d, type %lx\n",
> pfn, ret, page->flags);
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-23 5:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-19 14:59 [RFC v2] HWPOISON: soft offlining for non-lru movable page ysxie
2017-01-19 14:59 ` ysxie
2017-01-23 4:39 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-01-23 4:39 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-01-23 5:14 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2017-01-23 5:14 ` Minchan Kim
2017-01-23 12:39 ` Yisheng Xie
2017-01-23 12:39 ` Yisheng Xie
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=20170123051459.GB11763@bbox \
--to=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=qiuxishi@huawei.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ysxie@foxmail.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.