Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Replace and improve "mcsafe" with copy_safe()

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:26 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:05 PM Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > When a copy function hits a bad page and the page is not yet known to
> > > be bad, what does it do?  (I.e. the page was believed to be fine but
> > > the copy function gets #MC.)  Does it unmap it right away?  What does
> > > it return?
> >
> > I suspect that we will only ever find a handful of situations where the
> > kernel can recover from memory that has gone bad that are worth fixing
> > (got to be some code path that touches a meaningful fraction of memory,
> > otherwise we get code complexity without any meaningful payoff).
> >
> > I don't think we'd want different actions for the cases of "we just found out
> > now that this page is bad" and "we got a notification an hour ago that this
> > page had gone bad". Currently we treat those the same for application
> > errors ... SIGBUS either way[1].
>
> Oh, I agree that the end result should be the same.  I'm thinking more
> about the mechanism and the internal API.  As a somewhat silly example
> of why there's a difference, the first time we try to read from bad
> memory, we can expect #MC (I assume, on a sensibly functioning
> platform).  But, once we get the #MC, I imagine that the #MC handler
> will want to unmap the page to prevent a storm of additional #MC
> events on the same page -- given the awful x86 #MC design, too many
> all at once is fatal.  So the next time we copy_mc_to_user() or
> whatever from the memory, we'll get #PF instead.  Or maybe that #MC
> will defer the unmap?

After the consumption the PMEM driver arranges for the page to never
be mapped again via its "badblocks" list.

>
> So the point of my questions is that the overall design should be at
> least somewhat settled before anyone tries to review just the copy
> functions.

I would say that DAX / PMEM stretches the Linux memory error handling
model beyond what it was originally designed. The primary concepts
that bend the assumptions of mm/memory-failure.c are:

1/ DAX pages can not be offlined via the page allocator.

2/ DAX pages (well cachelines in those pages) can be asynchronously
marked poisoned by a platform or device patrol scrub facility.

3/ DAX pages might be repaired by writes.

Currently 1/ and 2/ are managed by a per-block-device "badblocks" list
that is populated by scrub results and also amended when #MC is raised
(see nfit_handle_mce()). When fs/dax.c services faults it will decline
to map the page if the physical file extent intersects a bad block.

There is also support for sending SIGBUS if userspace races the
scrubber to consume the badblock. However, that uses the standard
'struct page' error model and assumes that a file backed page is 1:1
mapped to a file. This requirement prevents filesystems from enabling
reflink. That collision and the desire to enable reflink is why we are
now investigating supplanting the mm/memory-failure.c model. When the
page is "owned" by a filesystem invoke the filesystem to handle the
memory error across all impacted files.

The presence of 3/ means that any action error handling takes to
disable access to the page needs to be capable of being undone, which
runs counter to the mm/memory-failure.c assumption that offlining is a
one-way trip.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org