From: Naoya Horiguchi <[email protected]>
When offlining memory section with hwpoisoned pages, the hwpoisons are
canceled. But num_poisoned_pages is not updated for that event, so the
counter becomes inconsistent.
Add num_poisoned_pages_dec() in __offline_isolated_pages(). PageHWPoison
can be set on a tail page of some high order buddy page, so we need check
PageHWPoison on each subpage.
Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <[email protected]>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 6e5b4488a0c5..dcd962855617 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -9487,12 +9487,15 @@ void __offline_isolated_pages(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
zone = page_zone(pfn_to_page(pfn));
spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
while (pfn < end_pfn) {
+ int i;
+
page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
/*
* The HWPoisoned page may be not in buddy system, and
* page_count() is not 0.
*/
if (unlikely(!PageBuddy(page) && PageHWPoison(page))) {
+ num_poisoned_pages_dec();
pfn++;
continue;
}
@@ -9510,6 +9513,9 @@ void __offline_isolated_pages(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
BUG_ON(page_count(page));
BUG_ON(!PageBuddy(page));
order = buddy_order(page);
+ for (i = 0; i < 1 << order; i++)
+ if (PageHWPoison(page + i))
+ num_poisoned_pages_dec();
del_page_from_free_list(page, zone, order);
pfn += (1 << order);
}
--
2.25.1
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:20:16AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2022/4/27 12:28, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > From: Naoya Horiguchi <[email protected]>
> >
> > When offlining memory section with hwpoisoned pages, the hwpoisons are
> > canceled. But num_poisoned_pages is not updated for that event, so the
> > counter becomes inconsistent.
>
> IIUC, this work is already done via clear_hwpoisoned_pages when __remove_pages.
> Or am I miss something?
Actually I had the same question when writing this patch, and found that
__remove_pages() seems to be called from device memory or HMM, but not from
offline_pages(). If you mean that we could make offline_pages() call
clear_hwpoisoned_pages(), that seems possible and I'll consider it.
But as David and Oscar pointed out for 0/4, removing PageHWPoison flags
in offlining seems not to be right thing, so I'd like to have some consensus
on what way to go first.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 03:16:01PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2022/4/28 12:05, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:20:16AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> >> On 2022/4/27 12:28, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> >>> From: Naoya Horiguchi <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> When offlining memory section with hwpoisoned pages, the hwpoisons are
> >>> canceled. But num_poisoned_pages is not updated for that event, so the
> >>> counter becomes inconsistent.
> >>
> >> IIUC, this work is already done via clear_hwpoisoned_pages when __remove_pages.
> >> Or am I miss something?
> >
> > Actually I had the same question when writing this patch, and found that
> > __remove_pages() seems to be called from device memory or HMM, but not from
>
> It seems remove_memory (which calls __remove_pages) will be called as .detach callback of
> memory_device_handler in drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c. So the hwpoison info will also be
> clear for that memory ?
Sorry, you're right. That code path also calls __remove_pages() and
clear_hwpoisoned_pages(). So most major usecases of memory hotremove seems
not to be affected by the reported problem.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi