[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <66c43dac-32ac-5801-c76c-01607d68e38b@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:13:16 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
<naoya.horiguchi@....com>, zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@...edance.com>
Cc: "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linmiaohe@...wei.com" <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] mm/memory-failure: introduce "hwpoisoned-pages"
entry
&hwpoisoned_pages);
>
> I'm not sure how useful this interface from userspace (controlling test process
> with this?). Do we really need to expose this to userspace?
>
>
> TBH I feel that another approach like below is more desirable:
>
> - define a new flag in "enum mf_flags" (for example named MF_SW_SIMULATED),
> - set the flag when calling memory_failure() from the three callers
> mentioned above,
> - define a global variable (typed bool) in mm/memory_failure.c_to show that
> the system has experienced a real hardware memory error events.
> - once memory_failure() is called without MF_SW_SIMULATED, the new global
> bool variable is set, and afterward unpoison_memory always fails with
> -EOPNOTSUPP.
Exactly what I had in mind.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists