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

Nai Xia
2009-06-04T06:25:32Z

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:45:20PM +0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:08:54PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> >
>> > BTW. I don't know if you are checking for PG_writeback often enough?
>> > You can't remove a PG_writeback page from pagecache. The normal
>> > pattern is lock_page(page); wait_on_page_writeback(page); which I
>>
>> So pages can be in writeback without being locked? I still
>> wasn't able to find such a case (in fact unless I'm misreading
>> the code badly the writeback bit is only used by NFS and a few
>> obscure cases)
>
> Yes the writeback page is typically not locked. Only read IO requires
> to be exclusive. Read IO is in fact page *writer*, while writeback IO
> is page *reader* :-)

Sorry for maybe somewhat a little bit off topic,
I am trying to get a good understanding of PG_writeback & PG_locked ;)

So you are saying PG_writeback & PG_locked are acting like a read/write lock?
I notice wait_on_page_writeback(page) seems always called with page locked --
that is the semantics of a writer waiting to get the lock while it's
acquired by
some reader:The caller(e.g. truncate_inode_pages_range() and
invalidate_inode_pages2_range()) are the writers waiting for
writeback readers (as you clarified ) to finish their job, right ?

So do you think the idea is sane to group the two bits together
to form a real read/write lock, which does not care about the _number_
of readers ?

>
> The writeback bit is _widely_ used.  test_set_page_writeback() is
> directly used by NFS/AFS etc. But its main user is in fact
> set_page_writeback(), which is called in 26 places.
>
>> > think would be safest
>>
>> Okay. I'll just add it after the page lock.
>>
>> > (then you never have to bother with the writeback bit again)
>>
>> Until Fengguang does something fancy with it.
>
> Yes I'm going to do it without wait_on_page_writeback().
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>