Re: [PATCH v2] mm, hwpoison: Try to recover from copy-on write faults

[Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>]

在 2022/10/21 PM12:08, Tony Luck 写道:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 09:52:01AM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2022/10/21 AM4:05, Tony Luck 写道:
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 09:57:04AM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 在 2022/10/20 AM1:08, Tony Luck 写道:
> 
>>> I'm experimenting with using sched_work() to handle the call to
>>> memory_failure() (echoing what the machine check handler does using
>>> task_work)_add() to avoid the same problem of not being able to directly
>>> call memory_failure()).
>>
>> Work queues permit work to be deferred outside of the interrupt context
>> into the kernel process context. If we return to user-space before the
>> queued memory_failure() work is processed, we will take the fault again,
>> as we discussed recently.
>>
>>     commit 7f17b4a121d0d ACPI: APEI: Kick the memory_failure() queue for synchronous errors
>>     commit 415fed694fe11 ACPI: APEI: do not add task_work to kernel thread to avoid memory leak
>>
>> So, in my opinion, we should add memory failure as a task work, like
>> do_machine_check does, e.g.
>>
>>     queue_task_work(&m, msg, kill_me_maybe);
> 
> Maybe ... but this case isn't pending back to a user instruction
> that is trying to READ the poison memory address. The task is just
> trying to WRITE to any address within the page.

Aha, I see the difference. Thank you. But I still have a question on
this. Let us discuss in your reply to David Laight.

Best Regards,
Shuai

> 
> So this is much more like a patrol scrub error found asynchronously
> by the memory controller (in this case found asynchronously by the
> Linux page copy function).  So I don't feel that it's really the
> responsibility of the current task.
> 
> When we do return to user mode the task is going to be busy servicing
> a SIGBUS ... so shouldn't try to touch the poison page before the
> memory_failure() called by the worker thread cleans things up.
> 
>>> +	INIT_WORK(&p->work, do_sched_memory_failure);
>>> +	p->pfn = pfn;
>>> +	schedule_work(&p->work);
>>> +}
>>
>> I think there is already a function to do such work in mm/memory-failure.c.
>>
>> 	void memory_failure_queue(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> 
> Also pointed out by Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> ... this does
> exacly what I want, and is working well in tests so far. So perhaps
> a cleaner solution than making the kill_me_maybe() function globally
> visible.
> 
> -Tony