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 ACD86C433F5 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 09:59:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id F39A86B0071; Mon, 9 May 2022 05:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id EEA476B0073; Mon, 9 May 2022 05:59:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D89C46B0074; Mon, 9 May 2022 05:59:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C684A6B0071 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 05:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E0B80DC3 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 09:59:00 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79445756040.17.97BCFBB Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9624100090 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 09:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 901421F9BB; Mon, 9 May 2022 09:58:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1652090338; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=t3Nw8WzaK1PoevHun3ShSThFnKV+M2vU5e2JQiidvDw=; b=CXXG+hQMBOphUH1gcr22Ve/aXotZ1hFxM02RPzbepKQ7S00eaBYD5MWx1g6XREZLxWb/89 D230tqg7UVI/dAh7GNBLQFqaFjpSYpbQ8edBQ+6JtyqonQHIiyP7LXfljBD/fr1boB3AYJ cMj9c7F5Xb0p9GhS/Q7FlR/csFrsYfg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1652090338; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=t3Nw8WzaK1PoevHun3ShSThFnKV+M2vU5e2JQiidvDw=; b=LYmXchS2Vpa+xW5lYWRGgNfp5aHMwIbNr5po8M8YhkXu2NelWmtihaGQyoQ70zDc7hco9E FYtT2Xtp/b3wU5AA== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF73E132C0; Mon, 9 May 2022 09:58:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 2hE5L+HleGJobwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 09 May 2022 09:58:57 +0000 Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 11:58:56 +0200 From: Oscar Salvador To: Miaohe Lin Cc: HORIGUCHI =?utf-8?B?TkFPWUEo5aCA5Y+jIOebtOS5nyk=?= , David Hildenbrand , Naoya Horiguchi , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , Mike Kravetz , Yang Shi , Muchun Song , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] mm, hwpoison: improve handling workload related to hugetlb and memory_hotplug Message-ID: 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6a5d31a3-c27f-f6d9-78bb-d6bf69547887@huawei.com> X-Stat-Signature: behctsoedwb4cek157zw431y6i779zg7 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B9624100090 Authentication-Results: imf05.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=CXXG+hQM; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=LYmXchS2; spf=pass (imf05.hostedemail.com: domain of osalvador@suse.de designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=osalvador@suse.de; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=suse.de X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1652090323-573613 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 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. 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. -- Oscar Salvador SUSE Labs