[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9CD4E5BC-185A-47E6-9A2C-1B5416DC57EE@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 23:19:39 -0400
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: Andrew Zaborowski <balrogg@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid poison consumption when splitting THP
On 10 Sep 2025, at 22:14, Andrew Zaborowski wrote:
> Handling a memory failure pointing inside a huge page requires splitting
> the page. The splitting logic uses a mechanism, implemented in
> migrate.c:try_to_map_unused_to_zeropage(), that inspects contents of
> individual pages to find zero-filled pages. The read access to the
> contents may cause a new, synchronous exception like an x86 Machine
> Check, delivered before the initial memory_failure() finishes, ending
> in a crash.
>
> Luckily memory_failure() already sets the has_hwpoisoned flag on the
> folio right before try_to_split_thp_page(). Don't enable the shared
> zeropage mechanism (RMP_USE_SHARED_ZEROPAGE flag) down in
> __split_unmapped_folio() when the original folio has has_hwpoisoned.
>
> Note: we're disabling a potentially useful feature, some of the
> individual pages that aren't poisoned might be zero-filled. One
> argument for not trying to add a mechanism to maybe re-scan them later,
> apart from code cost, is that the owning process is likely being
> killed and the memory released.
Sounds reasonable to me.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Zaborowski <balrogg+code@...il.com>
> ---
> mm/huge_memory.c | 3 ++-
> mm/memory-failure.c | 6 ++++--
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index 9c38a95e9f0..1568f0308b9 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -3588,6 +3588,7 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
> struct list_head *list, bool uniform_split)
> {
> struct deferred_split *ds_queue = get_deferred_split_queue(folio);
> + bool has_hwpoisoned = folio_test_has_hwpoisoned(folio);
The state needs to be stored here because __split_unmapped_folio()
clears the flag. Maybe add a comment here to prevent people
from “optimizing” it by calling folio_test_has_hwpoisoned(folio)
in the code below.
(I wanted to until I checked the definition of folio_test_has_hwpoisoned())
> XA_STATE(xas, &folio->mapping->i_pages, folio->index);
> struct folio *end_folio = folio_next(folio);
> bool is_anon = folio_test_anon(folio);
> @@ -3858,7 +3859,7 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
> if (nr_shmem_dropped)
> shmem_uncharge(mapping->host, nr_shmem_dropped);
>
> - if (!ret && is_anon)
> + if (!ret && is_anon && !has_hwpoisoned)
> remap_flags = RMP_USE_SHARED_ZEROPAGE;
> remap_page(folio, 1 << order, remap_flags);
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index fc30ca4804b..2d755493de9 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -2352,8 +2352,10 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> * otherwise it may race with THP split.
> * And the flag can't be set in get_hwpoison_page() since
> * it is called by soft offline too and it is just called
> - * for !MF_COUNT_INCREASED. So here seems to be the best
> - * place.
> + * for !MF_COUNT_INCREASED.
> + * It also tells __split_unmapped_folio() to not bother
s/__split_unmapped_folio/__folio_split/, since remap_page() is
called in __folio_split().
> + * using the shared zeropage -- the all-zeros check would
> + * consume the poison. So here seems to be the best place.
> *
> * Don't need care about the above error handling paths for
> * get_hwpoison_page() since they handle either free page
> --
> 2.45.2
Otherwise, Acked-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists