Re: [PATCH] Hibernation: Fix mark_nosave_pages()

From: Len Brown
Date: Tue Mar 11 2008 - 23:23:14 EST


applied to acpi test tree.

thanks,
-len

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi Len,
>
> The following patch fixes http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9966 .
>
> Although the problem has been there for quite some time (since before 2.6.22,
> apparently), it would be good to have in 2.6.25, because it may fix booting
> problems on the affected systems.
>
> Please note that it doesn't modify the code behavior on the systems which are
> not affected by bug #9966 .
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
> ---
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
>
> There is a problem in the hibernation code that triggers on some NUMA
> systems on which pfn_valid() returns 'true' for some PFNs that don't
> belong to any zone. Namely, there is a BUG_ON() in
> memory_bm_find_bit() that triggers for PFNs not belonging to any
> zone and passing the pfn_valid() test. On the affected systems it
> triggers when we mark PFNs reported by the platform as not saveable,
> because the PFNs in question belong to a region mapped directly using
> iorepam() (i.e. the ACPI data area) and they pass the pfn_valid()
> test.
>
> Modify memory_bm_find_bit() so that it returns an error if given PFN
> doesn't belong to any zone instead of crashing the kernel and ignore
> the result returned by it in mark_nosave_pages(), while marking the
> "nosave" memory regions.
>
> This doesn't affect the hibernation functionality, as we won't touch
> the PFNs in question anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/power/snapshot.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/power/snapshot.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/power/snapshot.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/power/snapshot.c
> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static void memory_bm_free(struct memory
> * of @bm->cur_zone_bm are updated.
> */
>
> -static void memory_bm_find_bit(struct memory_bitmap *bm, unsigned long pfn,
> +static int memory_bm_find_bit(struct memory_bitmap *bm, unsigned long pfn,
> void **addr, unsigned int *bit_nr)
> {
> struct zone_bitmap *zone_bm;
> @@ -461,7 +461,8 @@ static void memory_bm_find_bit(struct me
> while (pfn < zone_bm->start_pfn || pfn >= zone_bm->end_pfn) {
> zone_bm = zone_bm->next;
>
> - BUG_ON(!zone_bm);
> + if (!zone_bm)
> + return -EFAULT;
> }
> bm->cur.zone_bm = zone_bm;
> }
> @@ -479,23 +480,40 @@ static void memory_bm_find_bit(struct me
> pfn -= bb->start_pfn;
> *bit_nr = pfn % BM_BITS_PER_CHUNK;
> *addr = bb->data + pfn / BM_BITS_PER_CHUNK;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static void memory_bm_set_bit(struct memory_bitmap *bm, unsigned long pfn)
> {
> void *addr;
> unsigned int bit;
> + int error;
>
> - memory_bm_find_bit(bm, pfn, &addr, &bit);
> + error = memory_bm_find_bit(bm, pfn, &addr, &bit);
> + BUG_ON(error);
> set_bit(bit, addr);
> }
>
> +static int mem_bm_set_bit_check(struct memory_bitmap *bm, unsigned long pfn)
> +{
> + void *addr;
> + unsigned int bit;
> + int error;
> +
> + error = memory_bm_find_bit(bm, pfn, &addr, &bit);
> + if (!error)
> + set_bit(bit, addr);
> + return error;
> +}
> +
> static void memory_bm_clear_bit(struct memory_bitmap *bm, unsigned long pfn)
> {
> void *addr;
> unsigned int bit;
> + int error;
>
> - memory_bm_find_bit(bm, pfn, &addr, &bit);
> + error = memory_bm_find_bit(bm, pfn, &addr, &bit);
> + BUG_ON(error);
> clear_bit(bit, addr);
> }
>
> @@ -503,8 +521,10 @@ static int memory_bm_test_bit(struct mem
> {
> void *addr;
> unsigned int bit;
> + int error;
>
> - memory_bm_find_bit(bm, pfn, &addr, &bit);
> + error = memory_bm_find_bit(bm, pfn, &addr, &bit);
> + BUG_ON(error);
> return test_bit(bit, addr);
> }
>
> @@ -709,8 +729,15 @@ static void mark_nosave_pages(struct mem
> region->end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT);
>
> for (pfn = region->start_pfn; pfn < region->end_pfn; pfn++)
> - if (pfn_valid(pfn))
> - memory_bm_set_bit(bm, pfn);
> + if (pfn_valid(pfn)) {
> + /*
> + * It is safe to ignore the result of
> + * mem_bm_set_bit_check() here, since we won't
> + * touch the PFNs for which the error is
> + * returned anyway.
> + */
> + mem_bm_set_bit_check(bm, pfn);
> + }
> }
> }
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/