Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] mm, hwpoison: improve handling workload related to hugetlb and memory_hotplug

From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc: "HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)" <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
	"Naoya Horiguchi" <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Mike Kravetz" <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
	"Yang Shi" <shy828301@gmail.com>,
	"Muchun Song" <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] mm, hwpoison: improve handling workload related to hugetlb and memory_hotplug
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 17:11:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0389eac1-af68-56b5-696d-581bb56878b9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <465902dc-d3bf-7a93-da04-839faddcd699@huawei.com>

On 09.05.22 12:53, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2022/5/9 17:58, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 05:04:54PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>> So that leaves us with either
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Fail offlining -> no need to care about reonlining
>>>
>>> Maybe fail offlining will be a better alternative as we can get rid of many races
>>> between memory failure and memory offline? But no strong opinion. :)
>>
>> If taking care of those races is not an herculean effort, I'd go with
>> allowing offlining + disallow re-onlining.
>> Mainly because memory RAS stuff.
> 
> This dose make sense to me. Thanks. We can try to solve those races if
> offlining + disallow re-onlining is applied. :)
> 
>>
>> Now, to the re-onlining thing, we'll have to come up with a way to check
>> whether a section contains hwpoisoned pages, so we do not have to go
>> and check every single page, as that will be really suboptimal.
> 
> Yes, we need a stable and cheap way to do that.

My simplistic approach would be a simple flag/indicator in the memory block devices
that indicates that any page in the memory block was hwpoisoned. It's easy to
check that during memory onlining and fail it.

diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
index 084d67fd55cc..3d0ef812e901 100644
--- a/drivers/base/memory.c
+++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
@@ -183,6 +183,9 @@ static int memory_block_online(struct memory_block *mem)
        struct zone *zone;
        int ret;
 
+       if (mem->hwpoisoned)
+               return -EHWPOISON;
+
        zone = zone_for_pfn_range(mem->online_type, mem->nid, mem->group,
                                  start_pfn, nr_pages);
 


Once the problematic DIMM would actually get unplugged, the memory block devices
would get removed as well. So when hotplugging a new DIMM in the same
location, we could online that memory again.

Another place to store that would be the memory section, we'd then have to check
all underlying sections here.

We're a bit short on flags in the memory section I think, but they are easier to
lookup from other code eventually then memory block devices.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb


