Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mm/hwpoison: check if a subpage of a hugetlb folio is raw HWPOISON

[Jiaqi Yan]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:02 AM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 07/11/23 10:05, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 8:16 AM Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 7:57 PM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 2023/7/8 4:19, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +             if (subpage == p->page) {
> > > > > +                     ret = true;
> > > > > +                     break;
> > > > > +             }
> > > > > +     }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     return ret;
> > > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > It seems there's a race between __is_raw_hwp_subpage and unpoison_memory:
> > > >   unpoison_memory               __is_raw_hwp_subpage
> > > >                                   if (!folio_test_hwpoison(folio)) -- hwpoison is set
> > > >     folio_free_raw_hwp            llist_for_each_entry_safe raw_hwp_list
> > > >       llist_del_all                 ..
> > > >     folio_test_clear_hwpoison
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Miaohe for raising this concern.
> > >
> > > > But __is_raw_hwp_subpage is used in hugetlbfs, unpoison_memory couldn't reach here because there's a
> > > > folio_mapping == NULL check before folio_free_raw_hwp.
> > >
> > > I agree. But in near future I do want to make __is_raw_hwp_subpage
> > > work for shared-mapping hugetlb, so it would be nice to work with
> > > unpoison_memory. It doesn't seem to me that holding mf_mutex in
> > > __is_raw_hwp_subpage is nice or even absolutely correct. Let me think
> > > if I can come up with something in v4.
> >
> > At my 2nd thought, if __is_raw_hwp_subpage simply takes mf_mutex
> > before llist_for_each_entry, it will introduce a deadlock:
> >
> > unpoison_memory                       __is_raw_hwp_subpage
> >   held mf_mutex                         held hugetlb_lock
> >   get_hwpoison_hugetlb_folio            attempts mf_mutex
> >     attempts hugetlb lock
> >
> > Not for this patch series, but for future, is it a good idea to make
> > mf_mutex available to hugetlb code? Then enforce the order of locking
> > to be mf_mutex first, hugetlb_lock second? I believe this is the
> > current locking pattern / order for try_memory_failure_hugetlb.
>
> I think only holding mf_mutex in __is_raw_hwp_subpage would be sufficient
> to prevent races with unpoison_memory.  memory failure code needs to take
> both mf_mutex and hugetlb_lock.  The hugetlb lock is to prevent hugetlb
> page state changes.  IIUC, __is_raw_hwp_subpage is only taking hugetlb_lock
> to prevent races with memory failure code.

Thanks Mike, I think mf_mutex is a simple and correct solution. I will
drop hugetlb_lock from __is_raw_hwp_subpage in v4.

>
> Of course, I could be missing something as there are subtle issues with
> locking in the memory failure code.
> --
> Mike Kravetz