Re: [bug report] dead loop in generic_perform_write() //Re: [PATCH v7 07/12] iov_iter: Convert iterate*() to inline funcs

[Tong Tiangen]

在 2024/3/3 2:06, Linus Torvalds 写道:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 at 01:37, Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think this solution has two impacts:
> > 1. Although it is not a performance-critical path, the CPU usage may be
> > affected by one more memory copy in some large-memory applications.
>
> Compared to the IO, the extra memory copy is a non-issue.
>
> If anything, getting rid of the "copy_mc" flag removes extra code in a
> much more important path (ie the normal iov_iter code).

Indeed. I'll test this solution. Theoretically, it should solve the problem.

> > 2. If a hardware memory error occurs in "good location" and the
> > ".copy_mc" is removed, the kernel will panic.
>
> That's always true. We do not support non-recoverable machine checks
> on kernel memory. Never have, and realistically probably never will. >
> In fact, as far as I know, the hardware that caused all this code in
> the first place no longer exists, and never really made it to wide
> production.

Yes. There is a low probability that the newly applied memory is faulty.

Thanks,
Tong.

> The machine checks in question happened on pmem, now killed by Intel.
> It's possible that somebody wants to use it for something else, but
> let's hope any future implementations are less broken than the
> unbelievable sh*tshow that caused all this code in the first place.
>
> The whole copy_mc_to_kernel() mess exists mainly due to broken pmem
> devices along with old and broken CPU's that did not deal correctly
> with machine checks inside the regular memory copy ('rep movs') code,
> and caused hung machines.
>
> IOW, notice how 'copy_mc_to_kernel()' just becomes a regular
> 'memcpy()' on fixed hardware, and how we have that disgusting
> copy_mc_fragile_key that gets enabled for older CPU cores.
>
> And yes, we then have copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string() which isn't
> *that* disgusting, and that actually handles machine checks properly
> on more modern hardware, but it's still very much "the hardware is
> misdesiged, it has no testing, and nobody sane should depend on this"
>
> In other words, it's the usual "Enterprise Hardware" situation. Looks
> fancy on paper, costs an arm and a leg, and the reality is just sad,
> sad, sad.
>
>                 Linus
> .