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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YV4Dz3y4NXhtqd6V@t490s> <CAHbLzkp8oO9qvDN66_ALOqNrUDrzHH7RZc3G5GQ1pxz8qXJjqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHbLzkqm_Os8TLXgbkL-oxQVsQqRbtmjdMdx0KxNke8mUF1mWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YWTc/n4r6CJdvPpt@t490s> <YWTobPkBc3TDtMGd@t490s> <CAHbLzkrOsNygu5x8vbMHedv+P3dEqOxOC6=O6ACSm1qKzmoCng@mail.gmail.com>
 <YWYHukJIo8Ol2sHN@t490s> <CAHbLzkp3UXKs_NP9XD_ws=CSSFzUPk7jRxj0K=gvOqoi+GotmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YWZMDTwCCZWX5/sQ@t490s> <CAHbLzkp8QkORXK_y8hnrg=2kTRFyoZpJcXbkyj6eyCdcYSbZTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YWZVdDSS/4rnFbqK@t490s>
In-Reply-To: <YWZVdDSS/4rnFbqK@t490s>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 14:42:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkrcOpG5AHk934hDJb2d+FocYjUc6nhBRofhTbTxLVWtYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 2/5] mm: filemap: check if THP has hwpoisoned subpage
 for PMD page fault
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?B?SE9SSUdVQ0hJIE5BT1lBKOWggOWPoyDnm7TkuZ8p?= 
        <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:41 PM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 08:27:06PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > But this also reminded me that shouldn't we be with the page lock already
> > > during the process of "setting hwpoison-subpage bit, split thp, clear
> > > hwpoison-subpage bit"?  If it's only the small window that needs protection,
> > > while when looking up the shmem pagecache we always need to take the page lock
> > > too, then it seems already safe even without the extra bit?  Hmm?
> >
> > I don't quite get your point. Do you mean memory_failure()? If so the
> > answer is no, outside the page lock. And the window may be indefinite
> > since file THP doesn't get split before this series and the split may
> > fail even after this series.
>
> What I meant is that we could extend the page_lock in try_to_split_thp_page()
> to cover setting hwpoison-subpage too (and it of course covers the clearing if
> thp split succeeded, as that's part of the split process).  But yeah it's a
> good point that the split may fail, so the extra bit seems still necessary.
>
> Maybe that'll be something worth mentioning in the commit message too?  The
> commit message described very well on the overhead of looping over 512 pages,
> however the reader can easily overlook the real reason for needing this bit -
> IMHO it's really for the thp split failure case, as we could also mention that
> if thp split won't fail, page lock should be suffice (imho).  We could also

Not only for THP split failure case. Before this series, shmem THP
does't get split at all. And this commit is supposed to be backported
to the older versions, so saying "page lock is sufficient" is not
precise and confusing.

> mention about why soft offline does not need that extra bit, which seems not
> obvious as well, so imho good material for commit messages.

It would be nice to mention soft offline case.

>
> Sorry to have asked for a lot of commit message changes; I hope they make sense.

Thanks a lot for all the great suggestions.

>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>