On 26 Feb 2017, at 19:20, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:28:15AM +0800, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>> hi Naoya,
>>
>> On 2017/2/23 11:23, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:00:17AM +0000, Horiguchi Naoya(堀口 直也) wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 04:41:29PM +0100, Jan Stancek wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> code below (and LTP madvise07 [1]) doesn't produce SIGBUS,
>>>>> unless I touch/prefault page before call to madvise().
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this expected behavior?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for reporting.
>>>>
>>>> madvise(MADV_HWPOISON) triggers page fault when called on the address
>>>> over which no page is faulted-in, so I think that SIGBUS should be
>>>> called in such case.
>>>>
>>>> But it seems that memory error handler considers such a page as "reserved
>>>> kernel page" and recovery action fails (see below.)
>>>>
>>>>   [  383.371372] Injecting memory failure for page 0x1f10 at 0x7efcdc569000
>>>>   [  383.375678] Memory failure: 0x1f10: reserved kernel page still referenced by 1 users
>>>>   [  383.377570] Memory failure: 0x1f10: recovery action for reserved kernel page: Failed
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how/when this behavior was introduced, so I try to understand.
>>>
>>> I found that this is a zero page, which is not recoverable for memory
>>> error now.
>>>
>>>> IMO, the test code below looks valid to me, so no need to change.
>>>
>>> I think that what the testcase effectively does is to test whether memory
>>> handling on zero pages works or not.
>>> And the testcase's failure seems acceptable, because it's simply not-implemented yet.
>>> Maybe recovering from error on zero page is possible (because there's no data
>>> loss for memory error,) but I'm not sure that code might be simple enough and/or
>>> it's worth doing ...
>> I question about it,  if a memory error happened on zero page, it will
>> cause all of data read from zero page is error, I mean no-zero, right?
>
> Hi Yisheng,
>
> Yes, the impact is serious (could affect many processes,) but it's possibility
> is very low because there's only one page in a system that is used for zero page.
> There are many other pages which are not recoverable for memory error like
> slab pages, so I'm not sure how I prioritize it (maybe it's not a
> top-priority thing, nor low-hanging fruit.)
>
>> And can we just use re-initial it with zero data maybe by memset ?
>
> Maybe it's not enoguh. Under a real hwpoison, we should isolate the error
> page to prevent the access on the broken data.
> But zero page is statically defined as an array of global variable, so
> it's not trival to replace it with a new zero page at runtime.
>
> Anyway, it's in my todo list, so hopefully revisited in the future.
>

Hi Naoya,

The test case tries to HWPOISON a range of virtual addresses that do not
map to any physical pages.

I expected either madvise should fail because HWPOISON does not work on
non-existing physical pages or madvise_hwpoison() should populate
some physical pages for that virtual address range and poison them.

As I tested it on kernel v4.10, the test application exited at
madvise, because madvise returns -1 and error message is
"Device or resource busy". I think this is a proper behavior.

There might be some confusion in madvise's man page on MADV_HWPOISON.
If you add some text saying madvise fails if any page is not mapped in
the given address range, that can eliminate the confusion.


--
Best Regards
Yan Zi