Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   =?iso-2022-jp?B?SE9SSUdVQ0hJIE5BT1lBKBskQktZOH0hIUQ+TGkbKEIp?= 
        <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
CC:     Aili Yao <yaoaili@kingsoft.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        "david@redhat.com" <david@redhat.com>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "yangfeng1@kingsoft.com" <yangfeng1@kingsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned
Thread-Index: AQHXCn0F5fAOAyGRl0mX4JfXYioGdapnG5GAgAEgN4CAAIHeAIAAAyEAgAAQYACAAF5TAIAAhxGAgAALNoCAB+cDgIAABNQAgABOzACAAHYEgIAAsYCAgAAiT4CAACi3AIABIFEAgAAZ9wCAAAHdAIABWP+AgAO0VwA=
Date:   Mon, 8 Mar 2021 06:45:58 +0000
Message-ID: <20210308064558.GA3617@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
References: <20210303115710.2e9f8e23@alex-virtual-machine>
 <20210303163912.3d508e0f@alex-virtual-machine>
 <1a78e9abdc134e35a5efcbf6b2fd2263@intel.com>
 <20210304101653.546a9da1@alex-virtual-machine>
 <20210304121941.667047c3@alex-virtual-machine>
 <20210304144524.795872d7@alex-virtual-machine>
 <20210304235720.GA215567@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20210305093016.40c87375@alex-virtual-machine>
 <20210305093656.6c262b19@alex-virtual-machine>
 <20210305221143.GA220893@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210305221143.GA220893@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-ID: <0526C214C792514280161EAE42CBE321@jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0187b92f-08dd-451e-1084-08d8e1fdd4fb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Mar 2021 06:45:58.7615
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: e67df547-9d0d-4f4d-9161-51c6ed1f7d11
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: U1PWP6mu8kPoyx1O3woeEispJpV51Sjei304CBVph7/qNG1RRLqyZRNZRbWeh/Csn1jEDcvvUeEVVfJmy0m1dg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: TY1PR01MB1868
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 02:11:43PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> This whole page table walking patch is trying to work around the
> races caused by multiple calls to memory_failure() for the same
> page.
>=20
> Maybe better to just avoid the races.  The comment right above
> memory_failure says:
>=20
>  * Must run in process context (e.g. a work queue) with interrupts
>  * enabled and no spinlocks hold.
>=20
> So it should be safe to grab and hold a mutex.  See patch below.

The mutex approach looks simpler and safer, so I'm fine with it.

>=20
> -Tony
>=20
> commit 8dd0dbe7d595e02647e9c2c76c03341a9f6bd7b9
> Author: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> Date:   Fri Mar 5 10:40:48 2021 -0800
>=20
>     Use a mutex to avoid memory_failure() races
>=20
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index 24210c9bd843..c1509f4b565e 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -1381,6 +1381,8 @@ static int memory_failure_dev_pagemap(unsigned long=
 pfn, int flags,
>  	return rc;
>  }
> =20
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(mf_mutex);
> +
>  /**
>   * memory_failure - Handle memory failure of a page.
>   * @pfn: Page Number of the corrupted page
> @@ -1424,12 +1426,18 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
>  		return -ENXIO;
>  	}
> =20
> +	mutex_lock(&mf_mutex);

Is it better to take mutex before memory_failure_dev_pagemap() block?
Or we don't have to protect against race for device memory?

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi=