Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1402836
| From | Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page |
| Date | 2016-05-18 11:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rA67n-eQ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rzHVo-1FI-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <rA5XI-aM-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 05/18/2016 11:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:42:55PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: >> There's a race window between checking page->flags and unpoisoning, which >> taints kernel with "BUG: Bad page state". That's overkill. It's safer to >> use bad_flags to detect hwpoisoned page. >> > > I'm not quite getting this one. Minimally, instead of = __PG_HWPOISON, it > should have been (bad_flags & __PG_POISON). As Vlastimil already pointed > out, __PG_HWPOISON can be 0. What I'm not getting is why this fixes the > race. The current race is > > 1. Check poison, set bad_flags > 2. poison clears in parallel > 3. Check page->flag state in bad_page and trigger warning > > The code changes it to > > 1. Check poison, set bad_flags > 2. poison clears in parallel > 3. Check bad_flags and trigger warning I think you got step 3 here wrong. It's "skip the warning since we have set bad_flags to hwpoison and bad_flags didn't change due to parallel unpoison". Perhaps the question is why do we need to split the handling between check_new_page_bad() and bad_page() like this? It might have been different in the past, but seems like at this point we only look for hwpoison from check_new_page_bad(). But a cleanup can come later. > There is warning either way. What did I miss? >
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> - 2016-05-17 09:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2016-05-18 09:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-05-18 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2016-05-18 11:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-05-18 12:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1] mm: bad_page() checks bad_flags instead of page->flags for hwpoison page Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> - 2016-05-18 12:20 +0200
[PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> - 2016-05-18 12:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-05-18 16:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] mm: check_new_page_bad() directly returns in __PG_HWPOISON case Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2016-05-20 16:30 +0200
csiph-web