[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210308223839.GA21886@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 22:38:39 +0000
From: HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
<naoya.horiguchi@....com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: Aili Yao <yaoaili@...gsoft.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"yangfeng1@...gsoft.com" <yangfeng1@...gsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 06:54:02PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> So it should be safe to grab and hold a mutex. See patch below.
> >
> > The mutex approach looks simpler and safer, so I'm fine with it.
>
> Thanks. Is that an "Acked-by:"?
Not yet, I intended to add it after full patch is submitted
(with your Signed-off-by and commit log).
>
> >> /**
> >> * memory_failure - Handle memory failure of a page.
> >> * @pfn: Page Number of the corrupted page
> >> @@ -1424,12 +1426,18 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> >> return -ENXIO;
> >> }
> >>
> >> + mutex_lock(&mf_mutex);
> >
> > Is it better to take mutex before memory_failure_dev_pagemap() block?
> > Or we don't have to protect against race for device memory?
>
> No races (recovery is only attempted for errors in normal memory).
OK, thanks.
- Naoya
Powered by blists - more mailing lists