[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221007005223.GC3227576@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2022 00:52:23 +0000
From: HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
<naoya.horiguchi@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
CC: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] mm/hwpoison: introduce per-memory_block hwpoison
counter counter
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:05:05AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > /*
> > @@ -2414,6 +2417,10 @@ int unpoison_memory(unsigned long pfn)
> > unlock_mutex:
> > mutex_unlock(&mf_mutex);
> > if (!ret || freeit) {
> > + /*
> > + * TODO: per-memory_block counter might break when the page
> > + * size to be unpoisoned is larger than a memory_block.
> > + */
>
> Hmm, but that happens easily e.g., with 1 GiB hugetlb page and 128 MiB
> memory section/block size. What would be the right thing to do here? The
> TODO should rather spell that out instead of just stating the problem.
What should we need here is to cancel the per-memory_block hwpoison counts
in each memory block associated with the hugepage to be unpoisoned.
I found that it can be done with additional several lines of code, so
v6 will contain them. Then, this TODO comment is no longer needed.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists