From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754030AbZFBNyC (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:54:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753229AbZFBNxw (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:53:52 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:36146 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754985AbZFBNxv (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:53:51 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,291,1241420400"; d="scan'208";a="149728698" Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:46:59 +0800 From: Wu Fengguang To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andi Kleen , "hugh@veritas.com" , "riel@redhat.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "chris.mason@oracle.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler in the VM v3 Message-ID: <20090602134659.GA21338@localhost> References: <20090527201239.C2C9C1D0294@basil.firstfloor.org> <20090528082616.GG6920@wotan.suse.de> <20090528095934.GA10678@localhost> <20090528122357.GM6920@wotan.suse.de> <20090528135428.GB16528@localhost> <20090601115046.GE5018@wotan.suse.de> <20090601183225.GS1065@one.firstfloor.org> <20090602120042.GB1392@wotan.suse.de> <20090602124757.GG1065@one.firstfloor.org> <20090602125713.GG1392@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090602125713.GG1392@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 08:57:13PM +0800, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 02:47:57PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 02:00:42PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > not a big deal and just avoids duplicating code. I attached an > > > (untested) patch. > > > > Thanks. But the function in the patch is not doing the same what > > the me_pagecache_clean/dirty are doing. For once there is no error > > checking, as in the second try_to_release_page() > > > > Then it doesn't do all the IO error and missing mapping handling. > > Obviously I don't mean just use that single call for the entire > handler. You can set the EIO bit or whatever you like. The > "error handling" you have there also seems strange. You could > retain it, but the page is assured to be removed from pagecache. You mean this? if (page_has_private(p) && !try_to_release_page(p, GFP_NOIO)) return FAILED; If page->private cannot be removed, that means some fs may start IO on it, so we return FAILED. > > The page_mapped() check is useless because the pages are not > > mapped here etc. > > That's OK, it is a core part of the protocol to prevent > truncated pages from being mapped, so I like it to be in > that function. Right. > (you are also doing extraneous page_mapped tests in your handler, > so surely your concern isn't from the perspective of this > error handler code) That's because the initial try_to_unmap() may fail and page still remain mapped, and remove_from_page_cache() assumes !page_mapped(). > > We could probably call truncate_complete_page(), but then > > we would also need to duplicate most of the checking outside > > the function anyways and there wouldn't be any possibility > > to share the clean/dirty variants. If you insist I can > > do it, but I think it would be significantly worse code > > than before and I'm reluctant to do that. > > I can write you the patch for that too if you like. I have already posted one on truncate_complete_page(). Not the way you want it? > > I don't also really see what the big deal is of just > > calling these few functions directly. After all we're not > > truncating here and they're all already called from other files. > > > > > > > No, it seems rather insane to do something like this here that no other > > > > > code in the mm ever does. > > > > > > > > Just because the rest of the VM doesn't do it doesn't mean it might make sense. > > > > > > It is going to be possible to do it somehow surely, but it is insane > > > to try to add such constraints to the VM to close a few small windows > > > > We don't know currently if they are small. If they are small I would > > agree with you, but that needs numbers. That said fancy writeback handling > > is currently not on my agenda. > > Yes, writeback pages are very limited, a tiny number at any time and > the faction gets relatively smaller as total RAM size gets larger. Yes they are less interesting for now. > > > if you already have other large ones. > > > > That's unclear too. > > You can't do much about most kernel pages, and dirty metadata pages > are both going to cause big problems. User pagetable pages. Lots of > stuff. Yes, that's a network of pointers that's hard to break away with. Thanks, Fengguang