From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE89C433F5 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 10:53:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3B1F56B0071; Mon, 9 May 2022 06:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 33A836B0073; Mon, 9 May 2022 06:53:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1DAD96B0074; Mon, 9 May 2022 06:53:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7366B0071 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 06:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C2661024 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 10:53:35 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79445893590.14.8FF5CFA Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) by imf21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F9F1C00A4 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 10:53:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.57]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KxdLS4LLtzhYyN; Mon, 9 May 2022 18:53:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.177.76] (10.174.177.76) by canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.244) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 9 May 2022 18:53:30 +0800 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] mm, hwpoison: improve handling workload related to hugetlb and memory_hotplug To: Oscar Salvador CC: =?UTF-8?B?SE9SSUdVQ0hJIE5BT1lBKOWggOWPoyDnm7TkuZ8p?= , David Hildenbrand , Naoya Horiguchi , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , Mike Kravetz , Yang Shi , Muchun Song , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20220427042841.678351-1-naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> <54399815-10fe-9d43-7ada-7ddb55e798cb@redhat.com> <20220427122049.GA3918978@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20220509072902.GB123646@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <6a5d31a3-c27f-f6d9-78bb-d6bf69547887@huawei.com> From: Miaohe Lin Message-ID: <465902dc-d3bf-7a93-da04-839faddcd699@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 18:53:29 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.177.76] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.244) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Authentication-Results: imf21.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf21.hostedemail.com: domain of linmiaohe@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.187 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linmiaohe@huawei.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 90F9F1C00A4 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: rfqncic3ownqfebfxfa7ufcm1exht5d3 X-HE-Tag: 1652093607-420078 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2022/5/9 17:58, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 05:04:54PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >>>> So that leaves us with either >>>> >>>> 1) Fail offlining -> no need to care about reonlining >> >> Maybe fail offlining will be a better alternative as we can get rid of many races >> between memory failure and memory offline? But no strong opinion. :) > > If taking care of those races is not an herculean effort, I'd go with > allowing offlining + disallow re-onlining. > Mainly because memory RAS stuff. This dose make sense to me. Thanks. We can try to solve those races if offlining + disallow re-onlining is applied. :) > > Now, to the re-onlining thing, we'll have to come up with a way to check > whether a section contains hwpoisoned pages, so we do not have to go > and check every single page, as that will be really suboptimal. Yes, we need a stable and cheap way to do that. Thanks! > >