Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756455AbZFDGZc (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 02:25:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752129AbZFDGZZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 02:25:25 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f214.google.com ([209.85.217.214]:34104 "EHLO mail-gx0-f214.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752091AbZFDGZY convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 02:25:24 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=nBBQNuAPFsZ4hvFt6jNXoFmohFqgMKmwQ5M3TlvzAY8ZcWVIoOQzVCdqr6qax/GY7y 4qF0Zz3xB4rITov2GEFmwQKwXMKTDlP8mOJ79JwrIkqihNv/O7faJx0SBkUBQM/tDC7j hv21/0ubtzlZzz/drrNFmhyWkF6CQA5eJmPNg= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090528145021.GA5503@localhost> References: <200905271012.668777061@firstfloor.org> <20090527201239.C2C9C1D0294@basil.firstfloor.org> <20090528082616.GG6920@wotan.suse.de> <20090528093141.GD1065@one.firstfloor.org> <20090528120854.GJ6920@wotan.suse.de> <20090528134520.GH1065@one.firstfloor.org> <20090528145021.GA5503@localhost> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:25:24 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler in the VM v3 From: Nai Xia To: Wu Fengguang Cc: Andi Kleen , Nick Piggin , "hugh@veritas.com" , "riel@redhat.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "chris.mason@oracle.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3206 Lines: 78 On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:45:20PM +0800, Andi Kleen wrote: >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:08:54PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > [snip] > >> > >> > BTW. I don't know if you are checking for PG_writeback often enough? >> > You can't remove a PG_writeback page from pagecache. The normal >> > pattern is lock_page(page); wait_on_page_writeback(page); which I >> >> So pages can be in writeback without being locked? I still >> wasn't able to find such a case (in fact unless I'm misreading >> the code badly the writeback bit is only used by NFS and a few >> obscure cases) > > Yes the writeback page is typically not locked. Only read IO requires > to be exclusive. Read IO is in fact page *writer*, while writeback IO > is page *reader* :-) Sorry for maybe somewhat a little bit off topic, I am trying to get a good understanding of PG_writeback & PG_locked ;) So you are saying PG_writeback & PG_locked are acting like a read/write lock? I notice wait_on_page_writeback(page) seems always called with page locked -- that is the semantics of a writer waiting to get the lock while it's acquired by some reader:The caller(e.g. truncate_inode_pages_range() and invalidate_inode_pages2_range()) are the writers waiting for writeback readers (as you clarified ) to finish their job, right ? So do you think the idea is sane to group the two bits together to form a real read/write lock, which does not care about the _number_ of readers ? > > The writeback bit is _widely_ used. ?test_set_page_writeback() is > directly used by NFS/AFS etc. But its main user is in fact > set_page_writeback(), which is called in 26 places. > >> > think would be safest >> >> Okay. I'll just add it after the page lock. >> >> > (then you never have to bother with the writeback bit again) >> >> Until Fengguang does something fancy with it. > > Yes I'm going to do it without wait_on_page_writeback(). > > The reason truncate_inode_pages_range() has to wait on writeback page > is to ensure data integrity. Otherwise if there comes two events: > ? ? ? ?truncate page A at offset X > ? ? ? ?populate page B at offset X > If A and B are all writeback pages, then B can hit disk first and then > be overwritten by A. Which corrupts the data at offset X from user's POV. > > But for hwpoison, there are no such worries. If A is poisoned, we do > our best to isolate it as well as intercepting its IO. If the interception > fails, it will trigger another machine check before hitting the disk. > > After all, poisoned A means the data at offset X is already corrupted. > It doesn't matter if there comes another B page. > > Thanks, > Fengguang > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at ?http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/