Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Fix unsuitable behavior for poisoned tail pages of THP.

PATCH In review Jin Dongming 2 participants 3 messages Jan 25, 2011 – Jan 27, 2011

Subsystems (2)
lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 3/3 Fix unsuitable behavior for poisoned tail pages of THP.

When a tail page of THP is poisoned, memory-failure will do nothing except setting poison flag, while the expected behavior is that the process, who is using the poisoned tail page, should be killed.

The above problem is caused by lru checking of the poisoned tail page of THP. Because PG_lru flag is only set on the head page of THP, the check always consider the poisoned tail page as NON lru page.

So avoid checking NON lru for THP, as like as hugetlb.

---
 mm/memory-failure.c |   27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
mm/memory-failure.c +15 -12
index 5396603..44a1bdf 100644
@@ -1046,19 +1046,22 @@ int __memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int trapno, int flags)
 	 * The check (unnecessarily) ignores LRU pages being isolated and
 	 * walked by the page reclaim code, however that's not a big loss.
 	 */
-	if (!PageLRU(p) && !PageHuge(p))
-		shake_page(p, 0);
-	if (!PageLRU(p) && !PageHuge(p)) {
-		/*
-		 * shake_page could have turned it free.
-		 */
-		if (is_free_buddy_page(p)) {
-			action_result(pfn, "free buddy, 2nd try", DELAYED);
-			return 0;
+	if (!PageCompound(p)) {
+		if (!PageLRU(p))
+			shake_page(p, 0);
+		if (!PageLRU(p)) {
+			/*
+			 * shake_page could have turned it free.
+			 */
+			if (is_free_buddy_page(p)) {
+				action_result(pfn, "free buddy, 2nd try",
+						DELAYED);
+				return 0;
+			}
+			action_result(pfn, "non LRU", IGNORED);
+			put_page(p);
+			return -EBUSY;
 		}
-		action_result(pfn, "non LRU", IGNORED);
-		put_page(p);
-		return -EBUSY;
 	}
 
 	/*
Signature · 1 line
1.7.2.2
#1 lore raw
Quoted 26 lines · Jin Dongming

When a tail page of THP is poisoned, memory-failure will do nothing except setting poison flag, while the expected behavior is that the process, who is using the poisoned tail page, should be killed.

The above problem is caused by lru checking of the poisoned tail page of THP. Because PG_lru flag is only set on the head page of THP, the check always consider the poisoned tail page as NON lru page.

So avoid checking NON lru for THP, as like as hugetlb.

---
 mm/memory-failure.c |   27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
mm/memory-failure.c +0 -0
index 5396603..44a1bdf 100644
@@ -1046,19 +1046,22 @@ int __memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int trapno, int flags)
 	 * The check (unnecessarily) ignores LRU pages being isolated and
 	 * walked by the page reclaim code, however that's not a big loss.
 	 */

mm/memory-failure.c int __memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int trapno, int flags) · line 1049

Quoted 10 lines
mm/memory-failure.c +1 -9
-	if (!PageLRU(p) && !PageHuge(p))
-		shake_page(p, 0);
-	if (!PageLRU(p) && !PageHuge(p)) {
-		/*
-		 * shake_page could have turned it free.
-		 */
-		if (is_free_buddy_page(p)) {
-			action_result(pfn, "free buddy, 2nd try", DELAYED);
-			return 0;
+	if (!PageCompound(p)) {

Here the check could become a:

        if (!PageHuge(p) && !PageTransCompound(p))

so the whole branch is optimized away at build time when both hugetlbfs and THP are set =n (or in archs not supporting either of those).

#2 lore raw

Hi, Andrea

Quoted 40 lines · Andrea Arcangeli
Quoted 26 lines · Jin Dongming

When a tail page of THP is poisoned, memory-failure will do nothing except setting poison flag, while the expected behavior is that the process, who is using the poisoned tail page, should be killed.

The above problem is caused by lru checking of the poisoned tail page of THP. Because PG_lru flag is only set on the head page of THP, the check always consider the poisoned tail page as NON lru page.

So avoid checking NON lru for THP, as like as hugetlb.

---
 mm/memory-failure.c |   27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
mm/memory-failure.c +0 -0
index 5396603..44a1bdf 100644
@@ -1046,19 +1046,22 @@ int __memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int trapno, int flags)
 	 * The check (unnecessarily) ignores LRU pages being isolated and
 	 * walked by the page reclaim code, however that's not a big loss.
 	 */

mm/memory-failure.c int __memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int trapno, int flags) · line 1049

Quoted 10 lines
mm/memory-failure.c +1 -9
-	if (!PageLRU(p) && !PageHuge(p))
-		shake_page(p, 0);
-	if (!PageLRU(p) && !PageHuge(p)) {
-		/*
-		 * shake_page could have turned it free.
-		 */
-		if (is_free_buddy_page(p)) {
-			action_result(pfn, "free buddy, 2nd try", DELAYED);
-			return 0;
+	if (!PageCompound(p)) {

Here the check could become a:

Quoted 2 lines
        if (!PageHuge(p) && !PageTransCompound(p))

I will modify it.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Jin Dongming

Quoted 11 lines

so the whole branch is optimized away at build time when both hugetlbfs and THP are set =n (or in archs not supporting either of those).

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/