[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <329c33ce-3fb8-436c-2ceb-e6520f0a973a@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 16:29:03 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>, <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <osalvador@...e.de>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm/memory-failure: move hwpoison_filter() higher
up
On 2024/5/10 14:26, Jane Chu wrote:
> Move hwpoison_filter() higher up as there is no need to spend a lot
> cycles only to find out later that the page is supposed to be skipped
> for hwpoison handling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
> ---
> mm/memory-failure.c | 15 +++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index 62133c10fb51..2fa884d8b5a3 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -2236,6 +2236,13 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> goto unlock_mutex;
> }
>
> + if (hwpoison_filter(p)) {
> + if (flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)
> + put_page(p);
> + res = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + goto unlock_mutex;
> + }
It might not be a good idea to do hwpoison_filter() here. We don't hold extra page refcnt
yet, so the page state will be really unstable. Or am I miss something?
Thanks.
.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists