From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B93718626 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 14:18:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706278722; cv=none; b=riEh3kXOHbIAy+oEnh6xYUURRr49/Boll+2hav/ibbqXLtumTYBhU+FEZVl3M1juB1kVkBcIvRametSbJrUF37ADlMrdQ/TLMuQhXq2xlNNJ6jcITRYT5d7Y9p+N/T87l8v4YvWdgaDytSOF2WYmcsGSZFEdRC+vqHqiimPjQAA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706278722; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vr9/PiqZYq75Gl46jRQ7Ws8nDbOftGp4ggYxSAKRxQs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uRetkwBnws5oVMavaoluAMB87AJuNIiseIbgoh7/beJGtDEdrFkrr+bpjXm3WJvphyF9LAzrb1qSH2vUkE0O3bb/+VIcpTnHO0RM42Fid/wNVKRmLJWTgNtaXBPpCkwt9FEE4kjq6OPbPKHuA8rRFndliNRHNIbC28l5RZ5n8a4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 13A1968C4E; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:18:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:18:34 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Chandan Babu R , "Darrick J. Wong" , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: put the xfs xfile abstraction on a diet v2 Message-ID: <20240126141834.GA4288@lst.de> References: <20240126132903.2700077-1-hch@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 02:15:44PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > hwpoison is per page not per file. That's intrinsic to, well, hardware > poison, it affects an entire page (I'd love to support sub-page poison, > but not enough to spend my time working on memory-poison.c). > > In general, I think there's a lack of understanding of hwpoison, and > I include myself in that. Mostly I blame Intel for this; limiting the > hardware support to the higher end machines means that most of us just > don't care about it. > > Why even bother checking for hwpoison in xfiles? If you have flaky > hardware, well, maybe there's a reason you're having to fsck, and crashing > during a fsck might encourage the user to replace their hardware with > stuff that works. But the sentence is stale actually - we're using folios now after Darrick coded up a helper check all the hwpoison cases and others. I should have removed it from the commit log. Crashing is never a good idea I think if we can easily avoid it. Note that I still find the difference in hwpoison checking in shmem vs filemap rather confusing.