Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
CC:     Oscar Salvador <OSalvador@suse.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@gmail.com>,
        "Pavel Tatashin" <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stable tree <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] hwpoison, memory_hotplug: allow hwpoisoned pages to
 be offlined
Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH] hwpoison, memory_hotplug: allow hwpoisoned pages
 to be offlined
Thread-Index: AQHUiu9tY5+24nB+PkGyMm7atS1YiqVvf4kAgABK3wCAAM/4gIAANTgAgAAMOwA=
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:15:53 +0000
Message-ID: <20181206091552.GB26516@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
References: <20181203100309.14784-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20181205122918.GL1286@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181205165716.GS1286@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181206052137.GA28595@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
 <20181206083206.GC1286@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20181206083206.GC1286@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Accept-Language: en-US, ja-JP
Content-Language: ja-JP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-ID: <CD9A479AF56DBD4EA4EB6EB94A401617@gisp.nec.co.jp>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 06-12-18 05:21:38, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:57:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 05-12-18 13:29:18, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > After some more thinking I am not really sure the above reasoning is
> > > > still true with the current upstream kernel. Maybe I just managed to
> > > > confuse myself so please hold off on this patch for now. Testing by
> > > > Oscar has shown this patch is helping but the changelog might need to be
> > > > updated.
> > > 
> > > OK, so Oscar has nailed it down and it seems that 4.4 kernel we have
> > > been debugging on behaves slightly different. The underlying problem is
> > > the same though. So I have reworded the changelog and added "just in
> > > case" PageLRU handling. Naoya, maybe you have an argument that would
> > > make this void for current upstream kernels.
> > 
> > The following commit (not in 4.4.x stable tree) might explain the
> > difference you experienced:
> > 
> >   commit 286c469a988fbaf68e3a97ddf1e6c245c1446968                          
> >   Author: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>                      
> >   Date:   Wed May 3 14:56:22 2017 -0700                                    
> >                                                                            
> >       mm: hwpoison: call shake_page() after try_to_unmap() for mlocked page
> > 
> > This commit adds shake_page() for mlocked pages to make sure that the target
> > page is flushed out from LRU cache. Without this shake_page(), subsequent
> > delete_from_lru_cache() (from me_pagecache_clean()) fails to isolate it and
> > the page will finally return back to LRU list.  So this scenario leads to
> > "hwpoisoned by still linked to LRU list" page.
> 
> OK, I see. So does that mean that the LRU handling is no longer needed
> and there is a guanratee that all kernels with the above commit cannot
> ever get an LRU page?

Theoretically no such gurantee, because try_to_unmap() doesn't have a
guarantee of success and then memory_failure() returns immediately
when hwpoison_user_mappings fails.
Or the following code (comes after hwpoison_user_mappings block) also implies
that the target page can still have PageLRU flag.

        /*
         * Torn down by someone else?
         */
        if (PageLRU(p) && !PageSwapCache(p) && p->mapping == NULL) {
                action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_TRUNCATED_LRU, MF_IGNORED);
                res = -EBUSY;
                goto out;
        }

So I think it's OK to keep "if (WARN_ON(PageLRU(page)))" block in
current version of your patch.

Feel free to add my ack.

Acked-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi