[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28c262360904080039l65c381edn106484c88f1c5819@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:39:17 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [3/16] POISON: Handle poisoned pages in page free
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > /*
>> > + * Page may have been marked bad before process is freeing it.
>> > + * Make sure it is not put back into the free page lists.
>> > + */
>> > + if (PagePoison(page)) {
>> > + /* check more flags here... */
>>
>> How about adding WARNING with some information(ex, pfn, flags..).
>
> The memory_failure() code is already quite chatty. Don't think more
> noise is needed currently.
Sure.
> Or are you worrying about the case where a page gets corrupted
> by software and suddenly has Poison bits set? (e.g. 0xff everywhere).
> That would deserve a printk, but I'm not sure how to reliably test for
> that. After all a lot of flag combinations are valid.
I misunderstood your code.
That's because you add the code in bad_page.
As you commented, your intention was to prevent bad page from returning buddy.
Is right ?
If it is right, how about adding prevention code to free_pages_check ?
Now, bad_page is for showing the information that why it is bad page
I don't like emergency exit in bad_page.
> -Andi
>
> --
> ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
>
--
Kinds regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists