Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler in the VM v3

Wu Fengguang
2009-06-01T14:06:22Z

On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 07:50:46PM +0800, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:54:28PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 08:23:57PM +0800, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 05:59:34PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > Hi Nick,
> > > >
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > + * remove_from_page_cache assumes (mapping && !mapped)
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + if (page_mapping(p) && !page_mapped(p)) {
> > > > > > + remove_from_page_cache(p);
> > > > > > + page_cache_release(p);
> > > > > > + }
> > > > >
> > > > > remove_mapping would probably be a better idea. Otherwise you can
> > > > > probably introduce pagecache removal vs page fault races which
> > > > > will make the kernel bug.
> > > >
> > > > We use remove_mapping() at first, then discovered that it made strong
> > > > assumption on page_count=2.
> > > >
> > > > I guess it is safe from races since we are locking the page?
> > >
> > > Yes it probably should (although you will lose get_user_pages data, but
> > > I guess that's the aim anyway).
> >
> > Yes. We (and truncate) rely heavily on this logic:
> >
> > retry:
> > lock_page(page);
> > if (page->mapping == NULL)
> > goto retry;
> > // do something on page
> > unlock_page(page);
> >
> > So that we can steal/isolate a page under its page lock.
> >
> > The truncate code does wait on writeback page, but we would like to
> > isolate the page ASAP, so as to avoid someone to find it in the page
> > cache (or swap cache) and then access its content.
> >
> > I see no obvious problems to isolate a writeback page from page cache
> > or swap cache. But also I'm not sure it won't break some assumption
> > in some corner of the kernel.
>
> The problem is that then you have lost synchronization in the
> pagecache. Nothing then prevents a new page from being put
> in there and trying to do IO to or from the same device as the
> currently running writeback.

[ I'm not setting mine mind to get rid of wait_on_page_writeback(),
however I'm curious about the consequences of not doing it :) ]

You are right in that IO can happen for a new page at the same file offset.
But I have analyzed that in another email:

: The reason truncate_inode_pages_range() has to wait on writeback page
: is to ensure data integrity. Otherwise if there comes two events:
: truncate page A at offset X
: populate page B at offset X
: If A and B are all writeback pages, then B can hit disk first and then
: be overwritten by A. Which corrupts the data at offset X from user's POV.
:
: But for hwpoison, there are no such worries. If A is poisoned, we do
: our best to isolate it as well as intercepting its IO. If the interception
: fails, it will trigger another machine check before hitting the disk.
:
: After all, poisoned A means the data at offset X is already corrupted.
: It doesn't matter if there comes another B page.

Does that make sense?

In fact even under the assumption that page won't be truncated during
writeback, nowhere except the end_writeback_io handlers can actually
safely take advantage of this assumption. There are no much such
handlers, so it's relatively easy to check them out one by one.

> > > But I just don't like this one file having all that required knowledge
> >
> > Yes that's a big problem.
> >
> > One major complexity involves classify the page into different known
> > types, by testing page flags, page_mapping, page_mapped, etc. This
> > is not avoidable.
>
> No.

If you don't know kind of page it is, how do we know to properly
isolate it? Or do you mean the current classifying code can be
simplified? Yeah that's kind of possible.

>
> > Another major complexity is on calling the isolation routines to
> > remove references from
> > - PTE
> > - page cache
> > - swap cache
> > - LRU list
> > They more or less made some assumptions on their operating environment
> > that we have to take care of. Unfortunately these complexities are
> > also not easily resolvable.
> >
> > > (and few comments) of all the files in mm/. If you want to get rid
> >
> > I promise I'll add more comments :)
>
> OK, but they should still go in their relevant files. Or as best as
> possible. Right now it's just silly to have all this here when much
> of it could be moved out to filemap.c, swap_state.c, page_alloc.c, etc.

OK, I'll bear that point in mind.

> > > of the page and don't care what it's count or dirtyness is, then
> > > truncate_inode_pages_range is the correct API to use.
> > >
> > > (or you could extract out some of it so you can call it directly on
> > > individual locked pages, if that helps).
> >
> > The patch to move over to truncate_complete_page() would like this.
> > It's not a big win indeed.
>
> No I don't mean to do this, but to move the truncate_inode_pages
> code for truncating a single, locked, page into another function
> in mm/truncate.c and then call that from here.

It seems to me that truncate_complete_page() is already the code
you want to move ;-) Or you mean more code around the call site of
truncate_complete_page()?

lock_page(page);

wait_on_page_writeback(page);
We could do this.

if (page_mapped(page)) {
unmap_mapping_range(mapping,
(loff_t)page->index<<PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT,
PAGE_CACHE_SIZE, 0);
}
We need a rather complex unmap logic.

if (page->index > next)
next = page->index;
next++;
truncate_complete_page(mapping, page);
unlock_page(page);

Now it's obvious that reusing more code than truncate_complete_page()
is not easy (or natural).

> > ---
> > mm/memory-failure.c | 14 ++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- sound-2.6.orig/mm/memory-failure.c
> > +++ sound-2.6/mm/memory-failure.c
> > @@ -327,20 +327,18 @@ static int me_pagecache_clean(struct pag
> > if (!isolate_lru_page(p))
> > page_cache_release(p);
> >
> > - if (page_has_private(p))
> > - do_invalidatepage(p, 0);
> > - if (page_has_private(p) && !try_to_release_page(p, GFP_NOIO))
> > - Dprintk(KERN_ERR "MCE %#lx: failed to release buffers\n",
> > - page_to_pfn(p));
> > -
> > /*
> > * remove_from_page_cache assumes (mapping && !mapped)
> > */
> > if (page_mapping(p) && !page_mapped(p)) {
> > - remove_from_page_cache(p);
> > - page_cache_release(p);
> > + ClearPageMlocked(p);
> > + truncate_complete_page(p->mapping, p)
> > }
> >
> > + if (page_has_private(p) && !try_to_release_page(p, GFP_NOIO))
> > + Dprintk(KERN_ERR "MCE %#lx: failed to release buffers\n",
> > + page_to_pfn(p));
> > +
> > return RECOVERED;
> > }
> >
> >
> > > OK this is the point I was missing.
> > >
> > > Should all be commented and put into mm/swap_state.c (or somewhere that
> > > Hugh prefers).
> >
> > But I doubt Hugh will welcome moving that bits into swap*.c ;)
>
> Why not? If he has to look at it anyway, he probably rather looks
> at fewer files :)

Heh. OK if that's more convenient - not a big issue for me really.

> > > > Clean swap cache pages can be directly isolated. A later page fault will bring
> > > > in the known good data from disk.
> > >
> > > OK, but why do you ClearPageUptodate if it is just to be deleted from
> > > swapcache anyway?
> >
> > The ClearPageUptodate() is kind of a careless addition, in the hope
> > that it will stop some random readers. Need more investigations.
>
> OK. But it just muddies the waters in the meantime, so maybe take
> such things out until there is a case for them.

OK.

> > > > > You haven't waited on writeback here AFAIKS, and have you
> > > > > *really* verified it is safe to call delete_from_swap_cache?
> > > >
> > > > Good catch. I'll soon submit patches for handling the under
> > > > read/write IO pages. In this patchset they are simply ignored.
> > >
> > > Well that's quite important ;) I would suggest you just wait_on_page_writeback.
> > > It is simple and should work. _Unless_ you can show it is a big problem that
> > > needs equivalently big mes to fix ;)
> >
> > Yes we could do wait_on_page_writeback() if necessary. The downside is,
> > keeping writeback page in page cache opens a small time window for
> > some one to access the page.
>
> AFAIKS there already is such a window? You're doing lock_page and such.

You know I'm such a crazy guy - I'm going to do try_lock_page() for
intercepting under read IOs 8-)

> No, it seems rather insane to do something like this here that no other
> code in the mm ever does.

Yes it's kind of insane. I'm interested in reasoning it out though.

Thanks,
Fengguang