linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)" <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@gmail.com>,
	Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm,hwpoison: make get_hwpoison_page call get_any_page()
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 00:03:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210513000303.GB563308@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210512085522.GB14726@linux>

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 10:55:22AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:10:16AM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>
> > 
> > Now __get_hwpoison_page() could return -EBUSY in a race condition,
> > so it's helpful to handle it by retrying.  We already have retry
> > logic, so make get_hwpoison_page() call get_any_page() when called
> > from memory_failure().
> 
> As I stated in your previous patch, I think you should start returning -EBUSY
> from this patch onwards.
> 
> >  static int get_any_page(struct page *p, unsigned long flags)
> >  {
> >  	int ret = 0, pass = 0;
> > @@ -1152,50 +1136,76 @@ static int get_any_page(struct page *p, unsigned long flags)
> >  		count_increased = true;
> >  
> >  try_again:
> > -	if (!count_increased && !__get_hwpoison_page(p)) {
> > -		if (page_count(p)) {
> > -			/* We raced with an allocation, retry. */
> > -			if (pass++ < 3)
> > -				goto try_again;
> > -			ret = -EBUSY;
> > -		} else if (!PageHuge(p) && !is_free_buddy_page(p)) {
> > -			/* We raced with put_page, retry. */
> > -			if (pass++ < 3)
> > -				goto try_again;
> > -			ret = -EIO;
> > +	if (!count_increased) {
> > +		ret = __get_hwpoison_page(p);
> > +		if (!ret) {
> > +			if (page_count(p)) {
> > +				/* We raced with an allocation, retry. */
> > +				if (pass++ < 3)
> > +					goto try_again;
> > +				ret = -EBUSY;
> > +			} else if (!PageHuge(p) && !is_free_buddy_page(p)) {
> > +				/* We raced with put_page, retry. */
> > +				if (pass++ < 3)
> > +					goto try_again;
> > +				ret = -EIO;
> > +			}
> > +			goto out;
> >  		}
> > +	}
> 
> I think this can be improved.
> 
> We cannot have -EBUSY unless we come from __get_hwpoison_page() (!count_increased),
> so I think a much more natural approach would be to stuff the hunk below in there,
> and then place the other stuff in an else, so something like:
> 
>         if (!count_increased) {
>                 ret = __get_hwpoison_page(p);
>                 if (!ret) {
>                         if (page_count(p)) {
>                                 /* We raced with an allocation, retry. */
>                                 if (pass++ < 3)
>                                         goto try_again;
>                                 ret = -EBUSY;
>                         } else if (!PageHuge(p) && !is_free_buddy_page(p)) {
>                                 /* We raced with put_page, retry. */
>                                 if (pass++ < 3)
>                                         goto try_again;
>                                 ret = -EIO;
>                         }
>                         goto out;
>                 } else if (ret == -EBUSY) {
> 			/* We raced with freeing huge page to buddy, retry. */
> 			if (pass++ < 3)
> 				goto try_again;
> 		}

Moving "if (ret == -EBUSY)" block to here makes sense to me. Thank you.

>         } else {

In the original logic, if __get_hwpoison_page() returns 1, we fall into the
"if (PageHuge(p) || PageLRU(p) || __PageMovable(p)" check.  I guess that this
"else" seems not necessary?

> 		/* We do already have a refcount for this page, see if we can
> 		 * handle it.
> 		 */
> 		if (PageHuge(p) || PageLRU(p) || __PageMovable(p)) {
> 			ret = 1;
> 		} else {
> 			/* A page we cannot handle. Check...
> 		}
> 	}

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi

      reply	other threads:[~2021-05-13  0:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-11 15:10 [PATCH v3 0/2] hwpoison: fix race with compound page allocation Naoya Horiguchi
2021-05-11 15:10 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] mm,hwpoison: " Naoya Horiguchi
2021-05-12  8:33   ` Oscar Salvador
2021-05-13  0:00     ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-05-12 12:19   ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-12 23:51     ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-05-11 15:10 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] mm,hwpoison: make get_hwpoison_page call get_any_page() Naoya Horiguchi
2021-05-12  8:55   ` Oscar Salvador
2021-05-13  0:03     ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210513000303.GB563308@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp \
    --to=naoya.horiguchi@nec.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
    --cc=nao.horiguchi@gmail.com \
    --cc=osalvador@suse.de \
    --cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).