* [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page
@ 2016-05-17 7:42 Naoya Horiguchi
2016-05-18 7:30 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-18 9:21 ` Mel Gorman
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Naoya Horiguchi @ 2016-05-17 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Vlastimil Babka, Mel Gorman, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
Naoya Horiguchi, Naoya Horiguchi
There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which
taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to
use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page.
Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git tmp/mm/page_alloc.c tmp_patched/mm/page_alloc.c
index 5b269bc..4e0fa37 100644
--- tmp/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ tmp_patched/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -522,8 +522,8 @@ static void bad_page(struct page *page, const char *reason,
static unsigned long nr_shown;
static unsigned long nr_unshown;
- /* Don't complain about poisoned pages */
- if (PageHWPoison(page)) {
+ /* Don't complain about hwpoisoned pages */
+ if (bad_flags == __PG_HWPOISON) {
page_mapcount_reset(page); /* remove PageBuddy */
return;
}
--
2.7.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page
2016-05-17 7:42 [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page Naoya Horiguchi
@ 2016-05-18 7:30 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-18 9:21 ` Mel Gorman
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2016-05-18 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Naoya Horiguchi, Andrew Morton
Cc: Mel Gorman, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Naoya Horiguchi
On 05/17/2016 09:42 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which
> taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to
> use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page.
>
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git tmp/mm/page_alloc.c tmp_patched/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 5b269bc..4e0fa37 100644
> --- tmp/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ tmp_patched/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -522,8 +522,8 @@ static void bad_page(struct page *page, const char *reason,
> static unsigned long nr_shown;
> static unsigned long nr_unshown;
>
> - /* Don't complain about poisoned pages */
> - if (PageHWPoison(page)) {
> + /* Don't complain about hwpoisoned pages */
> + if (bad_flags == __PG_HWPOISON) {
This will wrongly return prematurely on !CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE where
__PG_HWPOISON == 0 and bad_page() called for other reasons than bad flags?
> page_mapcount_reset(page); /* remove PageBuddy */
> return;
> }
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page
2016-05-17 7:42 [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page Naoya Horiguchi
2016-05-18 7:30 ` Vlastimil Babka
@ 2016-05-18 9:21 ` Mel Gorman
2016-05-18 9:31 ` Vlastimil Babka
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Mel Gorman @ 2016-05-18 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Naoya Horiguchi
Cc: Andrew Morton, Vlastimil Babka, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Naoya Horiguchi
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:42:55PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which
> taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to
> use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page.
>
I'm not quite getting this one. Minimally, instead of = __PG_HWPOISON, it
should have been (bad_flags & __PG_POISON). As Vlastimil already pointed
out, __PG_HWPOISON can be 0. What I'm not getting is why this fixes the
race. The current race is
1. Check poison, set bad_flags
2. poison clears in parallel
3. Check page->flag state in bad_page and trigger warning
The code changes it to
1. Check poison, set bad_flags
2. poison clears in parallel
3. Check bad_flags and trigger warning
There is warning either way. What did I miss?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page
2016-05-18 9:21 ` Mel Gorman
@ 2016-05-18 9:31 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-18 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2016-05-18 10:09 ` [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case Naoya Horiguchi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2016-05-18 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman, Naoya Horiguchi
Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Naoya Horiguchi
On 05/18/2016 11:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:42:55PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>> There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which
>> taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to
>> use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page.
>>
>
> I'm not quite getting this one. Minimally, instead of = __PG_HWPOISON, it
> should have been (bad_flags & __PG_POISON). As Vlastimil already pointed
> out, __PG_HWPOISON can be 0. What I'm not getting is why this fixes the
> race. The current race is
>
> 1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> 2. poison clears in parallel
> 3. Check page->flag state in bad_page and trigger warning
>
> The code changes it to
>
> 1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> 2. poison clears in parallel
> 3. Check bad_flags and trigger warning
I think you got step 3 here wrong. It's "skip the warning since we have
set bad_flags to hwpoison and bad_flags didn't change due to parallel
unpoison".
Perhaps the question is why do we need to split the handling between
check_new_page_bad() and bad_page() like this? It might have been
different in the past, but seems like at this point we only look for
hwpoison from check_new_page_bad(). But a cleanup can come later.
> There is warning either way. What did I miss?
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page
2016-05-18 9:31 ` Vlastimil Babka
@ 2016-05-18 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2016-05-18 10:17 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2016-05-18 10:09 ` [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case Naoya Horiguchi
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Mel Gorman @ 2016-05-18 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vlastimil Babka
Cc: Naoya Horiguchi, Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Naoya Horiguchi
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:31:07AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 05/18/2016 11:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:42:55PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> >>There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which
> >>taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to
> >>use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page.
> >>
> >
> >I'm not quite getting this one. Minimally, instead of = __PG_HWPOISON, it
> >should have been (bad_flags & __PG_POISON). As Vlastimil already pointed
> >out, __PG_HWPOISON can be 0. What I'm not getting is why this fixes the
> >race. The current race is
> >
> >1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> >2. poison clears in parallel
> >3. Check page->flag state in bad_page and trigger warning
> >
> >The code changes it to
> >
> >1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> >2. poison clears in parallel
> >3. Check bad_flags and trigger warning
>
> I think you got step 3 here wrong. It's "skip the warning since we have set
> bad_flags to hwpoison and bad_flags didn't change due to parallel unpoison".
>
I think the benefit is marginal. The race means that the patch will trigger
a warning that might have been missed before due to a parallel unpoison
but that's not necessary a Good Thing. It's inherently race-prone.
Naoya, if you fix the check to (bad_flags & __PG_POISON) then I'll add my
ack but I'm not convinced it's a real problem.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case
2016-05-18 9:31 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-18 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
@ 2016-05-18 10:09 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2016-05-18 14:03 ` Mel Gorman
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Naoya Horiguchi @ 2016-05-18 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vlastimil Babka
Cc: Mel Gorman, Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Naoya Horiguchi
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:31:07AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 05/18/2016 11:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:42:55PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > > There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which
> > > taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to
> > > use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not quite getting this one. Minimally, instead of = __PG_HWPOISON, it
> > should have been (bad_flags & __PG_POISON). As Vlastimil already pointed
> > out, __PG_HWPOISON can be 0. What I'm not getting is why this fixes the
> > race. The current race is
> >
> > 1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> > 2. poison clears in parallel
> > 3. Check page->flag state in bad_page and trigger warning
> >
> > The code changes it to
> >
> > 1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> > 2. poison clears in parallel
> > 3. Check bad_flags and trigger warning
>
> I think you got step 3 here wrong. It's "skip the warning since we have set
> bad_flags to hwpoison and bad_flags didn't change due to parallel unpoison".
>
> Perhaps the question is why do we need to split the handling between
> check_new_page_bad() and bad_page() like this? It might have been different
> in the past, but seems like at this point we only look for hwpoison from
> check_new_page_bad(). But a cleanup can come later.
Thanks for clarification. check_new_page_bad() is the only function interested
in hwpoison flag, so we had better move the hwpoison related code in bad_page()
to check_new_page_bad().
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
---
>From c600b1ee6c36b3df6973f5365b4179c92f3c08e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:42:57 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON
case
Currently we check page->flags twice for "HWPoisoned" case of
check_new_page_bad(), which can cause a race with unpoisoning.
This race unnecessarily taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state".
check_new_page_bad() is the only caller of bad_page() which is interested
in __PG_HWPOISON, so let's move the hwpoison related code in bad_page()
to it.
Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 9 +++------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 5b269bc3eca7..59b938ddfb2d 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -522,12 +522,6 @@ static void bad_page(struct page *page, const char *reason,
static unsigned long nr_shown;
static unsigned long nr_unshown;
- /* Don't complain about poisoned pages */
- if (PageHWPoison(page)) {
- page_mapcount_reset(page); /* remove PageBuddy */
- return;
- }
-
/*
* Allow a burst of 60 reports, then keep quiet for that minute;
* or allow a steady drip of one report per second.
@@ -1654,6 +1648,9 @@ static void check_new_page_bad(struct page *page)
if (unlikely(page->flags & __PG_HWPOISON)) {
bad_reason = "HWPoisoned (hardware-corrupted)";
bad_flags = __PG_HWPOISON;
+ /* Don't complain about hwpoisoned pages */
+ page_mapcount_reset(page); /* remove PageBuddy */
+ return;
}
if (unlikely(page->flags & PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP)) {
bad_reason = "PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP flag set";
--
2.5.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page
2016-05-18 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
@ 2016-05-18 10:17 ` Naoya Horiguchi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Naoya Horiguchi @ 2016-05-18 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman
Cc: Vlastimil Babka, Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Naoya Horiguchi
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:52:51AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:31:07AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 05/18/2016 11:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:42:55PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > >>There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which
> > >>taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to
> > >>use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I'm not quite getting this one. Minimally, instead of = __PG_HWPOISON, it
> > >should have been (bad_flags & __PG_POISON). As Vlastimil already pointed
> > >out, __PG_HWPOISON can be 0. What I'm not getting is why this fixes the
> > >race. The current race is
> > >
> > >1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> > >2. poison clears in parallel
> > >3. Check page->flag state in bad_page and trigger warning
> > >
> > >The code changes it to
> > >
> > >1. Check poison, set bad_flags
> > >2. poison clears in parallel
> > >3. Check bad_flags and trigger warning
> >
> > I think you got step 3 here wrong. It's "skip the warning since we have set
> > bad_flags to hwpoison and bad_flags didn't change due to parallel unpoison".
> >
>
> I think the benefit is marginal. The race means that the patch will trigger
> a warning that might have been missed before due to a parallel unpoison
> but that's not necessary a Good Thing. It's inherently race-prone.
>
> Naoya, if you fix the check to (bad_flags & __PG_POISON) then I'll add my
> ack but I'm not convinced it's a real problem.
This v1 had the wrong operator issue as you mentioned. I posted v2 a while ago,
which has no such issue and is a better fix hopefully.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case
2016-05-18 10:09 ` [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case Naoya Horiguchi
@ 2016-05-18 14:03 ` Mel Gorman
2016-05-20 14:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Mel Gorman @ 2016-05-18 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Naoya Horiguchi
Cc: Vlastimil Babka, Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Naoya Horiguchi
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:09:50AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> From c600b1ee6c36b3df6973f5365b4179c92f3c08e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:42:57 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON
> case
>
> Currently we check page->flags twice for "HWPoisoned" case of
> check_new_page_bad(), which can cause a race with unpoisoning.
> This race unnecessarily taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state".
> check_new_page_bad() is the only caller of bad_page() which is interested
> in __PG_HWPOISON, so let's move the hwpoison related code in bad_page()
> to it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case
2016-05-18 14:03 ` Mel Gorman
@ 2016-05-20 14:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2016-05-20 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman, Naoya Horiguchi
Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Naoya Horiguchi
On 05/18/2016 04:03 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:09:50AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>> From c600b1ee6c36b3df6973f5365b4179c92f3c08e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
>> Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:42:57 +0900
>> Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON
>> case
>>
>> Currently we check page->flags twice for "HWPoisoned" case of
>> check_new_page_bad(), which can cause a race with unpoisoning.
>> This race unnecessarily taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state".
>> check_new_page_bad() is the only caller of bad_page() which is interested
>> in __PG_HWPOISON, so let's move the hwpoison related code in bad_page()
>> to it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
>
> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-05-20 14:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-05-17 7:42 [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page Naoya Horiguchi
2016-05-18 7:30 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-18 9:21 ` Mel Gorman
2016-05-18 9:31 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-18 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2016-05-18 10:17 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2016-05-18 10:09 ` [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case Naoya Horiguchi
2016-05-18 14:03 ` Mel Gorman
2016-05-20 14:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
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).