Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] pagemap: Introduce ->memory_failure()

ruansy.fnst
2021-03-08T03:46:16Z

> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:55 AM Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > When memory-failure occurs, we call this function which is implemented
> > by each kind of devices. For the fsdax case, pmem device driver
> > implements it. Pmem device driver will find out the block device where
> > the error page locates in, and try to get the filesystem on this block
> > device. And finally call filesystem handler to deal with the error.
> > The filesystem will try to recover the corrupted data if possiable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/memremap.h | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/memremap.h b/include/linux/memremap.h
> > index 79c49e7f5c30..0bcf2b1e20bd 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/memremap.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/memremap.h
> > @@ -87,6 +87,14 @@ struct dev_pagemap_ops {
> > * the page back to a CPU accessible page.
> > */
> > vm_fault_t (*migrate_to_ram)(struct vm_fault *vmf);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Handle the memory failure happens on one page. Notify the processes
> > + * who are using this page, and try to recover the data on this page
> > + * if necessary.
> > + */
> > + int (*memory_failure)(struct dev_pagemap *pgmap, unsigned long pfn,
> > + int flags);
> > };
>
> After the conversation with Dave I don't see the point of this. If
> there is a memory_failure() on a page, why not just call
> memory_failure()? That already knows how to find the inode and the
> filesystem can be notified from there.

We want memory_failure() supports reflinked files. In this case, we are not
able to track multiple files from a page(this broken page) because
page->mapping,page->index can only track one file. Thus, I introduce this
->memory_failure() implemented in pmem driver, to call ->corrupted_range()
upper level to upper level, and finally find out files who are
using(mmapping) this page.

>
> Although memory_failure() is inefficient for large range failures, I'm
> not seeing a better option, so I'm going to test calling
> memory_failure() over a large range whenever an in-use dax-device is
> hot-removed.
>

I did not test this for large range failure yet... I am not sure if it works
fine. But because of the complex tracking method, I think it would be more
inefficient in this case than before.

--
Thanks,
Ruan Shiyang.