[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZkXDS9y_cBSzBzeN@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 10:26:51 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
shy828301@...il.com, nao.horiguchi@...il.com,
xuyu@...ux.alibaba.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/huge_memory: don't unpoison huge_zero_folio
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 05:55:39PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > + if (is_huge_zero_folio(folio)) {
> > + unpoison_pr_info("Unpoison: huge zero page is not supported %#lx\n",
> > + pfn, &unpoison_rs);
> > + goto unlock_mutex;
> > + }
> > +
Sorry for spamming your reply David, but for some unknown reason I am not able
to find the original patch in my mailbox, in none of the two accountes I am
subscribed, so I guess I will have to reply here.
Just two things
1) We do not care if someone grabs a refcount for huge_zero_folio,
because since it is not supported anyway the outcome will not change.
Also, AFAIK, there is no chance we can unpoison that folio.
Therefore, I would just lift the check two blocks and place it right after
the hw_memory_failure check.
2) The whole thing is unsupported, but you will return -EBUSY while you
should be returning -EOPNOTSUPP AFAICS.
with that you can add:
Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists