Re: [PATCH V2] MCE: fix an error of mce_bad_pages statistics

[Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>]

On 2012/12/10 19:39, Wanpeng Li wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:16:50PM +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> On 2012/12/10 18:47, Simon Jeons wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 17:06 +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>> On 2012/12/10 16:33, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:11:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:48:45 +0800
>>>>>> Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On x86 platform, if we use "/sys/devices/system/memory/soft_offline_page" to offline a
>>>>>>> free page twice, the value of mce_bad_pages will be added twice. So this is an error,
>>>>>>> since the page was already marked HWPoison, we should skip the page and don't add the
>>>>>>> value of mce_bad_pages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $ cat /proc/meminfo | grep HardwareCorrupted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> soft_offline_page()
>>>>>>> 	get_any_page()
>>>>>>> 		atomic_long_add(1, &mce_bad_pages)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1582,8 +1582,11 @@ int soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
>>>>>>>  		return ret;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  done:
>>>>>>> -	atomic_long_add(1, &mce_bad_pages);
>>>>>>> -	SetPageHWPoison(page);
>>>>>>>  	/* keep elevated page count for bad page */
>>>>>>> +	if (!PageHWPoison(page)) {
>>>>>>> +		atomic_long_add(1, &mce_bad_pages);
>>>>>>> +		SetPageHWPoison(page);
>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>  	return ret;
>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A few things:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - soft_offline_page() already checks for this case:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	if (PageHWPoison(page)) {
>>>>>> 		unlock_page(page);
>>>>>> 		put_page(page);
>>>>>> 		pr_info("soft offline: %#lx page already poisoned\n", pfn);
>>>>>> 		return -EBUSY;
>>>>>> 	}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  so why didn't this check work for you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Presumably because one of the earlier "goto done" branches was
>>>>>>  taken.  Which one, any why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  This function is an utter mess.  It contains six return points
>>>>>>  randomly intermingled with three "goto done" return points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  This mess is probably the cause of the bug you have observed.  Can
>>>>>>  we please fix it up somehow?  It *seems* that the design (lol) of
>>>>>>  this function is "for errors, return immediately.  For success, goto
>>>>>>  done".  In which case "done" should have been called "success".  But
>>>>>>  if you just look at the function you'll see that this approach didn't
>>>>>>  work.  I suggest it be converted to have two return points - one for
>>>>>>  the success path, one for the failure path.  Or something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - soft_offline_huge_page() is a miniature copy of soft_offline_page()
>>>>>>  and might suffer the same bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - A cleaner, shorter and possibly faster implementation is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	if (!TestSetPageHWPoison(page))
>>>>>> 		atomic_long_add(1, &mce_bad_pages);
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since hwpoison bit for free buddy page has already be set in get_any_page, 
>>>>> !TestSetPageHWPoison(page) will not increase mce_bad_pages count even for 
>>>>> the first time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Wanpeng Li
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The poisoned page is isolated in bad_page(), I wonder whether it could be isolated
>>>> immediately in soft_offline_page() and memory_failure()?
>>>>
>>>> buffered_rmqueue()
>>>> 	prep_new_page()
>>>> 		check_new_page()
>>>> 			bad_page()
>>>
>>> Do you mean else if(is_free_buddy_page(p)) branch is redundancy?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> get_any_page() -> "else if(is_free_buddy_page(p))" branch is *not* redundancy.
>>
>> It is another topic, I mean since the page is poisoned, so why not isolate it
>>from page buddy alocator in soft_offline_page() rather than in check_new_page().
>>
>> I find soft_offline_page() only migrate the page and mark HWPoison, the poisoned
>> page is still managed by page buddy alocator.
>>
> 
> Hi Xishi,
> 
> HWPoison delays any action on buddy allocator pages, handling can be safely postponed 
> until a later time when the page might be referenced. By delaying, some transient errors 
> may not reoccur or may be irrelevant.
> 
> Regards,
> Wanpeng Li 
> 

Hi Wanpeng, thanks for your explanation.

One more question, can we add a list_head to manager the poisoned pages? I find ia64
has the array which named "static struct page *page_isolate[MAX_PAGE_ISOLATE]".

Andrew, what do you think?

Thanks
Xishi Qiu

>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Xishi Qiu
>>>>
>>>>>> - We have atomic_long_inc().  Use it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Why do we have a variable called "mce_bad_pages"?  MCE is an x86
>>>>>>  concept, and this code is in mm/.  Lights are flashing, bells are
>>>>>>  ringing and a loudspeaker is blaring "layering violation" at us!
>>>>>>
>>
> 
> 
> .
> 



--
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>