Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/memory-failure: send SIGBUS in the event of thp split fail

Jane Chu
2024-05-10T03:19:04Z

On 5/9/2024 7:59 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2024/5/9 23:34, Jane Chu wrote:
>> On 5/9/2024 1:30 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>> On 2024/5/9 1:45, Jane Chu wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2024 1:08 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024/5/7 4:26, Jane Chu wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/2024 12:00 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024/5/2 7:24, Jane Chu wrote:
>>>>>>>> When handle hwpoison in a GUP longterm pin'ed thp page,
>>>>>>>> try_to_split_thp_page() will fail. And at this point, there is little else
>>>>>>>> the kernel could do except sending a SIGBUS to the user process, thus
>>>>>>>> give it a chance to recover.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@oracle.com>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your patch. Some comments below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>     mm/memory-failure.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>     1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
>>>>>>>> index 7fcf182abb96..67f4d24a98e7 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -2168,6 +2168,37 @@ static int memory_failure_dev_pagemap(unsigned long pfn, int flags,
>>>>>>>>         return rc;
>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>>     +/*
>>>>>>>> + * The calling condition is as such: thp split failed, page might have
>>>>>>>> + * been GUP longterm pinned, not much can be done for recovery.
>>>>>>>> + * But a SIGBUS should be delivered with vaddr provided so that the user
>>>>>>>> + * application has a chance to recover. Also, application processes'
>>>>>>>> + * election for MCE early killed will be honored.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +static int kill_procs_now(struct page *p, unsigned long pfn, int flags,
>>>>>>>> +            struct page *hpage)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +    struct folio *folio = page_folio(hpage);
>>>>>>>> +    LIST_HEAD(tokill);
>>>>>>>> +    int res = -EHWPOISON;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    /* deal with user pages only */
>>>>>>>> +    if (PageReserved(p) || PageSlab(p) || PageTable(p) || PageOffline(p))
>>>>>>>> +        res = -EBUSY;
>>>>>>>> +    if (!(PageLRU(hpage) || PageHuge(p)))
>>>>>>>> +        res = -EBUSY;
>>>>>>> Above checks seems unneeded. We already know it's thp?
>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I  lifted these checks from hwpoison_user_mapping() with a hope to make kill_procs_now() more generic,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> such as, potentially replacing kill_accessing_processes() for re-accessing hwpoisoned page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I backed out at last, due to concerns that my tests might not have covered sufficient number of scenarios.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    if (res == -EHWPOISON) {
>>>>>>>> +        collect_procs(folio, p, &tokill, flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED);
>>>>>>>> +        kill_procs(&tokill, true, pfn, flags);
>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +    if (flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)
>>>>>>>> +        put_page(p);
>>>>>>> This if block is broken. put_page() has been done when try_to_split_thp_page() fails?
>>>>>> put_page() has not been done if try_to_split_thp_page() fails, and I think it should.
>>>>> In try_to_split_thp_page(), if split_huge_page fails, i.e. ret != 0, put_page() is called. See below:
>>>>>
>>>>> static int try_to_split_thp_page(struct page *page)
>>>>> {
>>>>>      int ret;
>>>>>
>>>>>      lock_page(page);
>>>>>      ret = split_huge_page(page);
>>>>>      unlock_page(page);
>>>>>
>>>>>      if (unlikely(ret))
>>>>>          put_page(page);
>>>>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>      return ret;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Or am I miss something?
>>>> I think you caught a bug in my code, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> How about moving put_page() outside try_to_split_thp_page() ?
>>> If you want to send SIGBUS in the event of thp split fail, it might be required to do so.
>>> I think kill_procs_now() needs extra thp refcnt to do its work.
>> Agreed.  I added an boolean to try_to_split_thp_page(),the boolean indicates whether to put_page().
> IMHO, it might be too complicated to add an extra boolean to indicate whether to put_page(). It might be
> more straightforward to always put_page outside try_to_split_thp_page?

Looks okay to me, let's see.  Will send out v2 in a while.

thanks,

-jane

> Thanks.
> .
>