Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-failure: Do not call action_result() on already poisoned pages
From: jane . chu
Date: Mon Aug 25 2025 - 18:37:59 EST
On 8/25/2025 9:09 AM, Kyle Meyer wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 11:04:43AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
On 2025/8/22 8:24, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 12:36 PM Kyle Meyer <kyle.meyer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:23:48AM -0700, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:46 AM Kyle Meyer <kyle.meyer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Calling action_result() on already poisoned pages causes issues:
* The amount of hardware corrupted memory is incorrectly incremented.
* NUMA node memory failure statistics are incorrectly updated.
* Redundant "already poisoned" messages are printed.
Assuming this means that the numbers reported from
/sys/devices/system/node/node*/memory_failure/*
do not match certain expectation, right?
If so, could you clarify what is the expectation?
All agreed.
Do not call action_result() on already poisoned pages and drop unused
MF_MSG_ALREADY_POISONED.
Hi Kyle,
Patch looks great to me, just one thought...
Thanks both.
Alternatively, have you thought about keeping MF_MSG_ALREADY_POISONED
but changing action_result for MF_MSG_ALREADY_POISONED?
- don't num_poisoned_pages_inc(pfn)
- don't update_per_node_mf_stats(pfn, result)
- still pr_err("%#lx: recovery action for %s: %s\n", ...)
- meanwhile remove "pr_err("%#lx: already hardware poisoned\n", pfn)"
in memory_failure and try_memory_failure_hugetlb
I did consider that approach but I was concerned about passing
MF_MSG_ALREADY_POISONED to action_result() with MF_FAILED. The message is a
bit misleading.
Based on my reading the documentation for MF_* in static const char
*action_name[]...
Yeah, for file mapped pages, kernel may not have hole-punched or
truncated it from the file mapping (shmem and hugetlbfs for example)
but that still considered as MF_RECOVERED, so touching a page with
HWPoison flag doesn't mean that page was failed to be recovered
previously.
For pages intended to be taken out of the buddy system, touching a
page with HWPoison flag does imply it isn't isolated and hence
MF_FAILED.
There should be other cases that memory_failure failed to isolate the
hwpoisoned pages at first time due to various reasons.
In summary, seeing the HWPoison flag again doesn't necessarily
indicate what the recovery result was previously; it only indicate
kernel won't re-attempt to recover?
Yes, kernel won't re-attempt to or just cannot recover.
How about introducing a new MF action result? Maybe MF_NONE? The message could
look something like:
Adding MF_NONE sounds fine to me, as long as we correctly document its
meaning, which can be subtle.
Adding a new MF action result sounds good to me. But IMHO MF_NONE might not be that suitable
as kill_accessing_process might be called to kill proc in this case, so it's not "NONE".
OK, would you like a separate MF action result for each case? Maybe
MF_ALREADY_POISONED and MF_ALREADY_POISONED_KILLED?
MF_ALREADY_POISONED can be the default and MF_ALREADY_POISONED_KILLED can be
used when kill_accessing_process() returns -EHWPOISON.
The log messages could look like...
Memory failure: 0xXXXXXXXX: recovery action for already poisoned page: None
and
Memory failure: 0xXXXXXXXX: recovery action for already poisoned page: Process killed
Agreed with Miaohe that "None" won't work.
"Process killed" sounds okay for MF_MSG_ALREADY_POISONED, but
we need to understand why "Failed" doesn't work for your usecase.
"Failed" means process is killed but page is not successfully isolated
which applies to MF_MSG_ALREADY_POISONED case as well.
thanks!
-jane
Thanks,
Kyle Meyer