Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:46:59 +0800 | From | Wu Fengguang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler in the VM v3 |
| |
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 08:57:13PM +0800, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 02:47:57PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 02:00:42PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > not a big deal and just avoids duplicating code. I attached an > > > (untested) patch. > > > > Thanks. But the function in the patch is not doing the same what > > the me_pagecache_clean/dirty are doing. For once there is no error > > checking, as in the second try_to_release_page() > > > > Then it doesn't do all the IO error and missing mapping handling. > > Obviously I don't mean just use that single call for the entire > handler. You can set the EIO bit or whatever you like. The > "error handling" you have there also seems strange. You could > retain it, but the page is assured to be removed from pagecache.
You mean this?
if (page_has_private(p) && !try_to_release_page(p, GFP_NOIO)) return FAILED;
If page->private cannot be removed, that means some fs may start IO on it, so we return FAILED.
> > The page_mapped() check is useless because the pages are not > > mapped here etc. > > That's OK, it is a core part of the protocol to prevent > truncated pages from being mapped, so I like it to be in > that function. Right.
> (you are also doing extraneous page_mapped tests in your handler, > so surely your concern isn't from the perspective of this > error handler code) That's because the initial try_to_unmap() may fail and page still remain mapped, and remove_from_page_cache() assumes !page_mapped().
> > We could probably call truncate_complete_page(), but then > > we would also need to duplicate most of the checking outside > > the function anyways and there wouldn't be any possibility > > to share the clean/dirty variants. If you insist I can > > do it, but I think it would be significantly worse code > > than before and I'm reluctant to do that. > > I can write you the patch for that too if you like.
I have already posted one on truncate_complete_page(). Not the way you want it? > > I don't also really see what the big deal is of just > > calling these few functions directly. After all we're not > > truncating here and they're all already called from other files. > > > > > > > No, it seems rather insane to do something like this here that no other > > > > > code in the mm ever does. > > > > > > > > Just because the rest of the VM doesn't do it doesn't mean it might make sense. > > > > > > It is going to be possible to do it somehow surely, but it is insane > > > to try to add such constraints to the VM to close a few small windows > > > > We don't know currently if they are small. If they are small I would > > agree with you, but that needs numbers. That said fancy writeback handling > > is currently not on my agenda. > > Yes, writeback pages are very limited, a tiny number at any time and > the faction gets relatively smaller as total RAM size gets larger.
Yes they are less interesting for now. > > > if you already have other large ones. > > > > That's unclear too. > > You can't do much about most kernel pages, and dirty metadata pages > are both going to cause big problems. User pagetable pages. Lots of > stuff.
Yes, that's a network of pointers that's hard to break away with.
Thanks, Fengguang
| |