[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0268cba2-807c-d7c8-952f-a81f52d45d15@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 15:58:03 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>, <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/madvise: Add MF_ACTION_REQUIRED to
madvise(MADV_HWPOISON)
On 2024/5/7 3:54, Jane Chu wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 12:02 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>
>> On 2024/5/2 7:24, Jane Chu wrote:
>>> The soft hwpoison injector via madvise(MADV_HWPOISON) operates in
>>> a synchrous way in a sense, the injector is also a process under
>>> test, and should it have the poisoned page mapped in its address
>>> space, it should legitimately get killed as much as in a real UE
>>> situation.
>> Will it be better to add a method to set MF_ACTION_REQUIRED explicitly when inject soft hwpoison?
>> Thanks.
>
> So the first question is: Is there a need to preserve the existing behavior of madvise(MADV_HWPOISON)?
>
> The madvise(2) man page says -
>
> *MADV_HWPOISON *(since Linux 2.6.32)
> Poison the pages in the range specified by/addr/ and/length/
> and handle subsequent references to those pages like a
> hardware memory corruption. This operation is available
> only for privileged (*CAP_SYS_ADMIN*) processes. This
> operation may result in the calling process receiving a
> *SIGBUS *and the page being unmapped.
>
> This feature is intended for testing of memory error-
> handling code; it is available only if the kernel was
> configured with*CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE*.
>
> And the impression from my reading is that: there doesn't seem to be a need.
>
> A couple observations -
> - The man page states that the calling process may receive a SIGBUS and the page being unmapped.
> But the existing behavior is no SIGBUS unless MCE early kill is elected, so it doesn't quite match
> the man page.
> - There is 'hwpoison-inject' which behaves similar to the existing madvise(MADV_HWPOISON), that is,
> soft inject without MF_ACTION_REQUIRED flag.
>
I tend to agree with you. It might be a good idea to add MF_ACTION_REQUIRED to madvise(MADV_HWPOISON).
Thanks.
.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists