[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB60838C1F65CA293188BB442DFC289@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 17:52:05 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
<naoya.horiguchi@....com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] mm, hwpoison: Recover from copy-on-write machine
checks
>> + * -1 = copy failed due to poison in source page
> Simply calling "poison" might cause confusion with page poisoning feature,
> so "hwpoison" might be better. But I know that "poison" is commonly used
> under arch/x86, and it's not clear to me what to do with this terminology.
> Maybe using -EHWPOISON instead of -1 might be helpful to the distinction.
Agreed. Using -EHWPOISON return is clearer here.
>> - if (!__wp_page_copy_user(new_page, old_page, vmf)) {
>> + ret = __wp_page_copy_user(new_page, old_page, vmf);
>> + if (ret == -1) {
>> + put_page(new_page);
>
> Maybe I miss something, but don't you have to care about refcount of
> old_page in this branch (as done in "ret == 0" branch)?
You didn't miss anything. But I did. More needs to be done with old_page
(it is where the poison is). I got "lucky" just ignoring/forgetting about it in
my patch ... the system just happened to recover, but I think the poison
may not have been handled for the parent process. that still has the page
mapped.. Need to think about this more.
Thanks for the review.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists