lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: ##freemail## Re: [PATCH v2] mm: hwpoison: disable memory error handling on 1GB hugepage
Date
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 03:03:55PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Cc Mel Gorman, Kirill, Dave Hansen,
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 07:51, Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 04:31:01PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > On 5/28/19 2:49 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > > Cc Paolo,
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 at 06:34, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 02/12/2018 06:48 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > >>> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 12:30:45 +0000 Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> So I don't think that the above test result means that errors are properly
> > > >>>>>> handled, and the proposed patch should help for arm64.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Although, the deviation of pud_huge() avoids a kernel crash the code
> > > >>>>> would be easier to maintain and reason about if arm64 helpers are
> > > >>>>> consistent with expectations by core code.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I'll look to update the arm64 helpers once this patch gets merged. But
> > > >>>>> it would be helpful if there was a clear expression of semantics for
> > > >>>>> pud_huge() for various cases. Is there any version that can be used as
> > > >>>>> reference?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Is that an ack or tested-by?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Mike keeps plaintively asking the powerpc developers to take a look,
> > > >>>> but they remain steadfastly in hiding.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cc'ing linuxppc-dev is always a good idea :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks Michael,
> > > >>
> > > >> I was mostly concerned about use cases for soft/hard offline of huge pages
> > > >> larger than PMD_SIZE on powerpc. I know that powerpc supports PGD_SIZE
> > > >> huge pages, and soft/hard offline support was specifically added for this.
> > > >> See, 94310cbcaa3c "mm/madvise: enable (soft|hard) offline of HugeTLB pages
> > > >> at PGD level"
> > > >>
> > > >> This patch will disable that functionality. So, at a minimum this is a
> > > >> 'heads up'. If there are actual use cases that depend on this, then more
> > > >> work/discussions will need to happen. From the e-mail thread on PGD_SIZE
> > > >> support, I can not tell if there is a real use case or this is just a
> > > >> 'nice to have'.
> > > >
> > > > 1GB hugetlbfs pages are used by DPDK and VMs in cloud deployment, we
> > > > encounter gup_pud_range() panic several times in product environment.
> > > > Is there any plan to reenable and fix arch codes?
> > >
> > > I too am aware of slightly more interest in 1G huge pages. Suspect that as
> > > Intel MMU capacity increases to handle more TLB entries there will be more
> > > and more interest.
> > >
> > > Personally, I am not looking at this issue. Perhaps Naoya will comment as
> > > he know most about this code.
> >
> > Thanks for forwarding this to me, I'm feeling that memory error handling
> > on 1GB hugepage is demanded as real use case.
> >
> > >
> > > > In addition, https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c#n3213
> > > > The memory in guest can be 1GB/2MB/4K, though the host-backed memory
> > > > are 1GB hugetlbfs pages, after above PUD panic is fixed,
> > > > try_to_unmap() which is called in MCA recovery path will mark the PUD
> > > > hwpoison entry. The guest will vmexit and retry endlessly when
> > > > accessing any memory in the guest which is backed by this 1GB poisoned
> > > > hugetlbfs page. We have a plan to split this 1GB hugetblfs page by 2MB
> > > > hugetlbfs pages/4KB pages, maybe file remap to a virtual address range
> > > > which is 2MB/4KB page granularity, also split the KVM MMU 1GB SPTE
> > > > into 2MB/4KB and mark the offensive SPTE w/ a hwpoison flag, a sigbus
> > > > will be delivered to VM at page fault next time for the offensive
> > > > SPTE. Is this proposal acceptable?
> > >
> > > I am not sure of the error handling design, but this does sound reasonable.
> >
> > I agree that that's better.
> >
> > > That block of code which potentially dissolves a huge page on memory error
> > > is hard to understand and I'm not sure if that is even the 'normal'
> > > functionality. Certainly, we would hate to waste/poison an entire 1G page
> > > for an error on a small subsection.
> >
> > Yes, that's not practical, so we need at first establish the code base for
> > 2GB hugetlb splitting and then extending it to 1GB next.
>
> I found it is not easy to split. There is a unique hugetlb page size
> that is associated with a mounted hugetlbfs filesystem, file remap to
> 2MB/4KB will break this. How about hard offline 1GB hugetlb page as
> what has already done in soft offline, replace the corrupted 1GB page
> by new 1GB page through page migration, the offending/corrupted area
> in the original 1GB page doesn't need to be copied into the new page,
> the offending/corrupted area in new page can keep full zero just as it
> is clear during hugetlb page fault, other sub-pages of the original
> 1GB page can be freed to buddy system. The sigbus signal is sent to
> userspace w/ offending/corrupted virtual address, and signal code,
> userspace should take care this.

Splitting hugetlb is simply hard, IMHO. THP splitting is done by years
of effort by many great kernel develpers, and I don't think doing similar
development on hugetlb is a good idea. I thought of converting hugetlb
into thp, but maybe it's not an easy task either.
"Hard offlining via soft offlining" approach sounds new and promising to me.
I guess we don't need a large patchset to do this. So, thanks for the idea!

- Naoya

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-21 07:44    [W:0.121 / U:1.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site