lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: fix special swap entry handling on copy mm
From
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Naoya Horiguchi
<n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:49:37PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:36:40PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>> > Hi Jerome,
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:43:24AM -0400, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
>> > >
>> > > Prior to this copy_one_pte will never reach the special swap file
>> > > handling code because swap_duplicate will return invalid value.
>> > >
>> > > Note this is not fatal so nothing bad ever happen because of that.
>> > > Reason is that copy_pte_range would break of its loop and call
>> > > add_swap_count_continuation which would see its a special swap
>> > > file and return 0 triggering copy_pte_range to try again. Because
>> > > we try again there is a huge chance that the temporarily special
>> > > migration pte is now again valid and pointing to a new valid page.
>> > >
>> > > This patch just split handling of special swap entry from regular
>> > > one inside copy_one_pte.
>> > >
>> > > (Note i spotted that while reading code i haven't tested my theory.)
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
>> >
>> > non_swap_entry() means not only migration entry, but also hwpoison entry,
>> > so it seems to me that simply moving the swap_duplicate() into the
>> > if(!non_swap_entry) block can change the behavior for hwpoison entry.
>> > Would it be nice to add check for such a case?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Naoya Horiguchi
>>
>> Well if my reading of the code is right for hwpoison entry current code will
>> loop indefinitly inside the kernel on fork if one entry is set to hwpoison.
>
> (Sorry if I missed something, but) __swap_duplicate always returns
> -EINVAL if non_swap_entry is true and then swap_duplicate returns 0.
> So copy_one_pte() doesn't return at if (swap_duplicate(entry) < 0)
> block for non_swap_entry. So ...

No, it's my fault i didn't pay attention to swap_duplicate only to
__swap_duplicate, also means my bug
is elsewhere.

Thanks for looking.
Cheers,
Jerome

>> > > Prior to this copy_one_pte will never reach the special swap file
>> > > handling code because swap_duplicate will return invalid value.
>
> this seems not correct to me.
> Could you explain more about this point?
> (Maybe I don't understand the terminology "special swap file"...)
>
>> My patch does not handle hwpoison because it seems useless as there is nothing
>> to do for hwpoison pte beside giving setting the new pte to hwpoison to. So
>> the fork child will also have a pte with hwpoison. My patch do just that.
>
> Yes, just copying hwpoison entry looks a right behavior to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Naoya Horiguchi
>
>> So change in behavior is current kernel loop indefinitly in kernel with hwpoison
>> pte on fork, vs child get hwpoison pte with my patch. Meaning that both child
>> and father can live as long as they dont access the hwpoisoned ptes.
>>
>> >
>> > > ---
>> > > mm/memory.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
>> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> > > index 1ce2e2a..9f907dd 100644
>> > > --- a/mm/memory.c
>> > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> > > @@ -833,20 +833,20 @@ copy_one_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
>> > > if (!pte_file(pte)) {
>> > > swp_entry_t entry = pte_to_swp_entry(pte);
>> > >
>> > > - if (swap_duplicate(entry) < 0)
>> > > - return entry.val;
>> > > -
>> > > - /* make sure dst_mm is on swapoff's mmlist. */
>> > > - if (unlikely(list_empty(&dst_mm->mmlist))) {
>> > > - spin_lock(&mmlist_lock);
>> > > - if (list_empty(&dst_mm->mmlist))
>> > > - list_add(&dst_mm->mmlist,
>> > > - &src_mm->mmlist);
>> > > - spin_unlock(&mmlist_lock);
>> > > - }
>> > > - if (likely(!non_swap_entry(entry)))
>> > > + if (likely(!non_swap_entry(entry))) {
>> > > + if (swap_duplicate(entry) < 0)
>> > > + return entry.val;
>> > > +
>> > > + /* make sure dst_mm is on swapoff's mmlist. */
>> > > + if (unlikely(list_empty(&dst_mm->mmlist))) {
>> > > + spin_lock(&mmlist_lock);
>> > > + if (list_empty(&dst_mm->mmlist))
>> > > + list_add(&dst_mm->mmlist,
>> > > + &src_mm->mmlist);
>> > > + spin_unlock(&mmlist_lock);
>> > > + }
>> > > rss[MM_SWAPENTS]++;
>> > > - else if (is_migration_entry(entry)) {
>> > > + } else if (is_migration_entry(entry)) {
>> > > page = migration_entry_to_page(entry);
>> > >
>> > > if (PageAnon(page))
>> > > --
>> > > 1.8.3.1
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
>> > > the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
>> > > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
>> > > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
>> > >
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
>> the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
>> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
>> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
>>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-13 04:41    [W:0.034 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site