Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] How HugeTLB handle HWPoison page at truncation

[David Hildenbrand]

On 19.01.25 19:06, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
> While I was working on userspace MFR via memfd [1], I spend some time to
> understand what current kernel does when a HugeTLB-backing memfd is
> truncated. My expectation is, if there is a HWPoison HugeTLB folio
> mapped via the memfd to userspace, it will be unmapped right away but
> still be kept in page cache [2]; however when the memfd is truncated to
> zero or after the memfd is closed, kernel should dissolve the HWPoison
> folio in the page cache, and free only the clean raw pages to buddy
> allocator, excluding the poisoned raw page.
>
> So I wrote a hugetlb-mfr-base.c selftest and expect
> 0. say nr_hugepages initially is 64 as system configuration.
> 1. after MADV_HWPOISON, nr_hugepages should still be 64 as we kept even
>     HWPoison huge folio in page cache. free_hugepages should be
>     nr_hugepages minus whatever the amount in use.
> 2. after truncated memfd to zero, nr_hugepages should reduced to 63 as
>     kernel dissolved and freed the HWPoison huge folio. free_hugepages
>     should also be 63.
>
> However, when testing at the head of mm-stable commit 2877a83e4a0a
> ("mm/hugetlb: use folio->lru int demote_free_hugetlb_folios()"), I found
> although free_hugepages is reduced to 63, nr_hugepages is not reduced
> and stay at 64.
>
> Is my expectation outdated? Or is this some kind of bug?
>
> I assume this is a bug and then digged a little bit more. It seems there
> are two issues, or two things I don't really understand.
>
> 1. During try_memory_failure_hugetlb, we should increased the target
>     in-use folio's refcount via get_hwpoison_hugetlb_folio. However,
>     until the end of try_memory_failure_hugetlb, this refcout is not put.
>     I can make sense of this given we keep in-use huge folio in page
>     cache.

Isn't the general rule that hwpoisoned folios have a raised refcount 
such that they won't get freed + reused? At least that's how the buddy 
deals with them, and I suspect also hugetlb?

> [ 1069.320976] page: refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x0 pfn:0x2780000
> [ 1069.320978] head: order:18 mapcount:0 entire_mapcount:0 nr_pages_mapped:0 pincount:0
> [ 1069.320980] flags: 0x400000000100044(referenced|head|hwpoison|node=0|zone=1)
> [ 1069.320982] page_type: f4(hugetlb)
> [ 1069.320984] raw: 0400000000100044 ffffffff8760bbc8 ffffffff8760bbc8 0000000000000000
> [ 1069.320985] raw: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000001f4000000 0000000000000000
> [ 1069.320987] head: 0400000000100044 ffffffff8760bbc8 ffffffff8760bbc8 0000000000000000
> [ 1069.320988] head: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000001f4000000 0000000000000000
> [ 1069.320990] head: 0400000000000012 ffffdd53de000001 ffffffffffffffff 0000000000000000
> [ 1069.320991] head: 0000000000040000 0000000000000000 00000000ffffffff 0000000000000000
> [ 1069.320992] page dumped because: track hwpoison folio's ref
>
> 2. Even if folio's refcount do drop to zero and we get into
>     free_huge_folio, it is not clear to me which part of free_huge_folio
>     is handling the case that folio is HWPoison. In my test what I
>     observed is that evantually the folio is enqueue_hugetlb_folio()-ed.

How would we get a refcount of 0 if we assume the raised refcount on a 
hwpoisoned hugetlb folio?

I'm probably missing something: are you saying that you can trigger a 
hwpoisoned hugetlb folio to get reallocated again, in upstream code?


--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb