Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp10610078imu; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 04:05:45 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/W2c1qjKlUPmbr2rQW6+3hPJDRbTIO+KsuykAS+Yv2Iv/Ef+M9kh4Aw0Pk4ColkyMEYfuDx X-Received: by 2002:a63:ba48:: with SMTP id l8mr23437785pgu.72.1544097945492; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 04:05:45 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1544097945; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=aC/42DYJtmrDyRnfQshKurmBcQNW/mHmf7rQM3E1TURSpv7rcMiwQpL2/c3kHT3bWv izMPDECsdg/Hftkqo1LhuKDULQlJpwNVyh+KqwK3zSzlPxuEZ8UkMQqD8XR8iybgeNFs qcTWh0T88GkIh6V6uZUZnn4XfXzizqZaBMRp9VCEAE93L83hPrb6Sisshc291WmvucSM oKifvY98QSbabBhe54E9Q/x+7cDmF3H+UK6BtaeV8jL0jrontspaQ57fhUa6sMrPL45D 8GiZD1D0sSU9gKFU8WYKUY0yReg6aXktdHLLiGlM5s4OIJhBqRXgQIzIXUh06N6gzYn0 mp2g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=pXdDCg965vQZO8A+Pa+7TGXA/yLcFivihmt1viFS+JI=; b=oRqJMCmtudM/nWCaBFhkq7hg64W8LJ1LqeZwlxl+AHvZz/hyHNkCyDlu4RNSw1xKzT NIBvB1HoHNG72LhNt9LdxodRJglH6bRUX7qREBy1JmfxzcZNwxGMp0C7G6BC8aw0b8K/ UQmzDEi/gNOfnOw4i8kRS6eAQue52eADviM4h0Zys3TNJs2Zf5tPt+uDCAcMF0D4MS+E +AyQQLIk5/xai6JIvF8UcYAWdyyTc7oFX3rMnyhoXxKmzfWNutOkVq7sH1L7RXS0rEZu /Ko39kLAA268dpeibPt9pFzvZZIRkHUPHu7HeXmlj1FDo1hyixpv66HymRxI18f6FNeA UFrQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j5si135631pfg.254.2018.12.06.04.05.25; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 04:05:45 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729508AbeLFMC2 (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:02:28 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59452 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728482AbeLFMC1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:02:27 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE789AFBB; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:02:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:02:23 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Naoya Horiguchi Cc: Oscar Salvador , Andrew Morton , Dan Williams , Pavel Tatashin , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , LKML , Stable tree Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] hwpoison, memory_hotplug: allow hwpoisoned pages to be offlined Message-ID: <20181206120223.GG1286@dhcp22.suse.cz> 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> <20181206091552.GB26516@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181206091552.GB26516@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 06-12-18 09:15:53, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > 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 > > > 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 Thanks a lot Naoya! I will extend the changelog with your wording. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs