Message ID | 20221021084611.53765-3-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [1/3] mm: memory-failure: make put_ref_page() more useful | expand |
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 04:46:11PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > Check mf_result in action_result(), only return 0 when MF_RECOVERED, > or return -EBUSY, which will simplify code a bit. > > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> Thanks for the cleanup, Kefeng. I basically agree with the change. I have one comment below ... > --- > mm/memory-failure.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c > index ca0199d0f79d..3f469e2da047 100644 > --- a/mm/memory-failure.c > +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c > @@ -1182,14 +1182,16 @@ static struct page_state error_states[] = { > * "Dirty/Clean" indication is not 100% accurate due to the possibility of > * setting PG_dirty outside page lock. See also comment above set_page_dirty(). > */ > -static void action_result(unsigned long pfn, enum mf_action_page_type type, > - enum mf_result result) > +static int action_result(unsigned long pfn, enum mf_action_page_type type, > + enum mf_result result) > { > trace_memory_failure_event(pfn, type, result); > > num_poisoned_pages_inc(); > pr_err("%#lx: recovery action for %s: %s\n", > pfn, action_page_types[type], action_name[result]); > + > + return result == MF_RECOVERED ? 0 : -EBUSY; I think that MF_DELAYED may be considered as success (returning 0), then page_action() can be cleaned up a little more (like below?) static int page_action(struct page_state *ps, struct page *p, unsigned long pfn) { int result; /* page p should be unlocked after returning from ps->action(). */ result = ps->action(ps, p); /* Could do more checks here if page looks ok */ /* * Could adjust zone counters here to correct for the missing page. */ return action_result(pfn, ps->type, result); } Existing direct callers (I mean action_result() called from other than page_action()) are never called with result==MF_DELAYED, so this change should not affect them. Does it make sense for you? Thanks, Naoya Horiguchi
On 2022/10/24 7:56, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 04:46:11PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: >> Check mf_result in action_result(), only return 0 when MF_RECOVERED, >> or return -EBUSY, which will simplify code a bit. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> > Thanks for the cleanup, Kefeng. > I basically agree with the change. I have one comment below ... > >> --- >> mm/memory-failure.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++-------------------------- >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c >> index ca0199d0f79d..3f469e2da047 100644 >> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c >> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c >> @@ -1182,14 +1182,16 @@ static struct page_state error_states[] = { >> * "Dirty/Clean" indication is not 100% accurate due to the possibility of >> * setting PG_dirty outside page lock. See also comment above set_page_dirty(). >> */ >> -static void action_result(unsigned long pfn, enum mf_action_page_type type, >> - enum mf_result result) >> +static int action_result(unsigned long pfn, enum mf_action_page_type type, >> + enum mf_result result) >> { >> trace_memory_failure_event(pfn, type, result); >> >> num_poisoned_pages_inc(); >> pr_err("%#lx: recovery action for %s: %s\n", >> pfn, action_page_types[type], action_name[result]); >> + >> + return result == MF_RECOVERED ? 0 : -EBUSY; > I think that MF_DELAYED may be considered as success (returning 0), then > page_action() can be cleaned up a little more (like below?) Yes, MF_DELAYED should be considered as success, > > static int page_action(struct page_state *ps, struct page *p, > unsigned long pfn) > { > int result; > > /* page p should be unlocked after returning from ps->action(). */ > result = ps->action(ps, p); > > /* Could do more checks here if page looks ok */ > /* > * Could adjust zone counters here to correct for the missing page. > */ > > return action_result(pfn, ps->type, result); > } > > Existing direct callers (I mean action_result() called from other than > page_action()) are never called with result==MF_DELAYED, so this change > should not affect them. I will refresh this patch, thanks. > Does it make sense for you? > > Thanks, > Naoya Horiguchi
diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c index ca0199d0f79d..3f469e2da047 100644 --- a/mm/memory-failure.c +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c @@ -1182,14 +1182,16 @@ static struct page_state error_states[] = { * "Dirty/Clean" indication is not 100% accurate due to the possibility of * setting PG_dirty outside page lock. See also comment above set_page_dirty(). */ -static void action_result(unsigned long pfn, enum mf_action_page_type type, - enum mf_result result) +static int action_result(unsigned long pfn, enum mf_action_page_type type, + enum mf_result result) { trace_memory_failure_event(pfn, type, result); num_poisoned_pages_inc(); pr_err("%#lx: recovery action for %s: %s\n", pfn, action_page_types[type], action_name[result]); + + return result == MF_RECOVERED ? 0 : -EBUSY; } static int page_action(struct page_state *ps, struct page *p, @@ -1856,8 +1858,7 @@ static int try_memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags, int *hugetlb flags |= MF_NO_RETRY; goto retry; } - action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNKNOWN, MF_IGNORED); - return res; + return action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNKNOWN, MF_IGNORED); } head = compound_head(p); @@ -1883,22 +1884,18 @@ static int try_memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags, int *hugetlb } else { res = MF_FAILED; } - action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_FREE_HUGE, res); - return res == MF_RECOVERED ? 0 : -EBUSY; + return action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_FREE_HUGE, res); } page_flags = head->flags; if (!hwpoison_user_mappings(p, pfn, flags, head)) { - action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNMAP_FAILED, MF_IGNORED); - res = -EBUSY; - goto out; + res = action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNMAP_FAILED, MF_IGNORED); + unlock_page(head); + return res; } return identify_page_state(pfn, p, page_flags); -out: - unlock_page(head); - return res; } #else @@ -2063,16 +2060,13 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags) } res = MF_FAILED; } - action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_BUDDY, res); - res = res == MF_RECOVERED ? 0 : -EBUSY; + res = action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_BUDDY, res); } else { - action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_KERNEL_HIGH_ORDER, MF_IGNORED); - res = -EBUSY; + res = action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_KERNEL_HIGH_ORDER, MF_IGNORED); } goto unlock_mutex; } else if (res < 0) { - action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNKNOWN, MF_IGNORED); - res = -EBUSY; + res = action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNKNOWN, MF_IGNORED); goto unlock_mutex; } } @@ -2093,8 +2087,7 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags) */ SetPageHasHWPoisoned(hpage); if (try_to_split_thp_page(p) < 0) { - action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNSPLIT_THP, MF_IGNORED); - res = -EBUSY; + res = action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNSPLIT_THP, MF_IGNORED); goto unlock_mutex; } VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!page_count(p), p); @@ -2127,8 +2120,7 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags) retry = false; goto try_again; } - action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_DIFFERENT_COMPOUND, MF_IGNORED); - res = -EBUSY; + res = action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_DIFFERENT_COMPOUND, MF_IGNORED); goto unlock_page; } @@ -2168,8 +2160,7 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags) * Abort on fail: __filemap_remove_folio() assumes unmapped page. */ if (!hwpoison_user_mappings(p, pfn, flags, p)) { - action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNMAP_FAILED, MF_IGNORED); - res = -EBUSY; + res = action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_UNMAP_FAILED, MF_IGNORED); goto unlock_page; } @@ -2177,8 +2168,7 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags) * Torn down by someone else? */ if (PageLRU(p) && !PageSwapCache(p) && p->mapping == NULL) { - action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_TRUNCATED_LRU, MF_IGNORED); - res = -EBUSY; + res = action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_TRUNCATED_LRU, MF_IGNORED); goto unlock_page; }
Check mf_result in action_result(), only return 0 when MF_RECOVERED, or return -EBUSY, which will simplify code a bit. Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> --- mm/memory-failure.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)