[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/22] HWPOISON: Intro (v5)
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:09:14AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:44:47AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >
> > > So IMHO it's OK for .31 as long as we agree on the user interfaces,
> > > ie. /proc/sys/vm/memory_failure_early_kill and the hwpoison uevent.
> > >
> > > It comes a long way through numerous reviews, and I believe all the
> > > important issues and concerns have been addressed. Nick, Rik, Hugh,
> > > Ingo, ... what are your opinions? Is the uevent good enough to meet
> > > your request to "die hard" or "die gracefully" or whatever on memory
> > > failure events?
> >
> > Uevent? As in, send a message to userspace? I don't think this
> > would be ideal for a fail-stop/failover situation.
> Agreed.
> For failover you typically want a application level heartbeat anyways
> to guard against user space software problems and if there's a kill then it
> would catch it. Also again in you want to check against all corruptions you
> have to do it in the low level handler or better watch corrected
> events too to predict failures (but the later is quite hard to do generally).
> To some extent the first is already implemented on x86, e.g. set
> the tolerance level to 0 will give more aggressive panics.
> > I can't see a good reason to rush to merge it.
> The low level x86 code for MCA recovery is in, just this high level
> part is missing to kill the correct process. I think it would be good to merge
> a core now. The basic code seems to be also as well tested as we can do it
> right now and exposing it to more users would be good. It's undoubtedly not
> perfect yet, but that's not a requirement for merge.
> There's a lot of fancy stuff that could be done in addition,
> but that's not really needed right now and for a lot of the fancy
> ideas (I have enough on my own :) it's dubious they are actually
> worth it.

Just my opinion. Normally it takes a lot longer for VM patches
like this to go through, but it's not really up to me anyway.
If Andrew or Linus has it in their head to merge it in 2.6.31,
it's going to get merged ;)

> > IMO the userspace-visible changes have maybe not been considered
> > too thoroughly, which is what I'd be most worried about. I probably
> > missed seeing documentation of exact semantics and situations
> > where admins should tune things one way or the other.
> There's only a single tunable anyways, early kill vs late kill.
> For KVM you need early kill, for the others it remains to be seen.

Right. It's almost like you need to do a per-process thing, and
those that can handle things (such as the new SIGBUS or the new
EIO) could get those, and others could be killed.

Early-kill for KVM does seem like reasonable justification on the
surface, but when I think more about it, I wonder does the guest
actually stand any better chance to correct the error if it is
reported at time T rather than T+delta? (who knows what the page
will be used for at any given time).

> > I hope it is going to be merged with an easy-to-use fault injector,
> > because that is the only way Joe kernel developer is ever going to
> > test it.
> See patches 13 and 14. In addition there's another low level x86
> injector too.
> There's also a test suite available (mce-test on git)

OK, I probably saw some "FOR TETSING" things and wrongly assumed the
injector was not supposed to be merged.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-15 09:21    [W:0.087 / U:0.740 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site