Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Date | Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:58:50 +0200 |
| |
On 31.03.21 12:56, Aili Yao wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:39:30 +0100 > Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:28:18AM +0000, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote: >>> Hi Aili, >>> >>> I agree that this set_mce_nospec() is not expected to be called for >>> "already hwpoisoned" page because in the reported case the error >>> page is already contained and no need to resort changing cache mode. >> >> Out of curiosity, what is the current behavour now? >> Say we have an ongoing MCE which has marked the page as HWPoison but >> memory_failure did not take any action on the page yet. >> And then, we have another MCE, which ends up there. >> set_mce_nospec might clear _PAGE_PRESENT bit. >> >> Does that have any impact on the first MCE? >> >>> It seems to me that memory_failure() does not return MF_XXX. But yes, >>> returning some positive value for the reported case could be a solution. >> >> No, you are right. I somehow managed to confuse myself. >> I see now that MF_XXX return codes are filtered out in page_action. >> >>> We could use some negative value (error code) to report the reported case, >>> then as you mentioned above, some callers need change to handle the >>> new case, and the same is true if you use some positive value. >>> My preference is -EHWPOISON, but other options are fine if justified well. >> >> -EHWPOISON seems like a good fit. >> > > Hi Oscar, david: > > Long away fron this topic, but i noticed today I made a stupid mistake that EHWPOISON is already > been declared, so we should better return EHWPOISON for this case. > > Really sorry for this! > > As the patch is still under review, I will post a new version for this, if I change this, may I add > your review tag here please?
Just resend as v2. We will review and post our RBs there.
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |