From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756860AbZFCLRz (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:17:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754895AbZFCLRr (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:17:47 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:34076 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754628AbZFCLRr (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:17:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:24:56 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andi Kleen , Wu Fengguang , "hugh@veritas.com" , "riel@redhat.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "chris.mason@oracle.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler in the VM v3 Message-ID: <20090603112456.GA1065@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20090528135428.GB16528@localhost> <20090601115046.GE5018@wotan.suse.de> <20090601183225.GS1065@one.firstfloor.org> <20090602120042.GB1392@wotan.suse.de> <20090602124757.GG1065@one.firstfloor.org> <20090602125713.GG1392@wotan.suse.de> <20090602134659.GA21338@localhost> <20090602151729.GC17448@wotan.suse.de> <20090602172715.GT1065@one.firstfloor.org> <20090603093546.GA16275@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090603093546.GA16275@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 11:35:46AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:27:15PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Hmm, if you're handling buffercache here then possibly yes. > > > > Good question, will check. > > BTW. now that I think about it, buffercache is probably not a good > idea to truncate (truncate, as-in: remove from pagecache). Because > filesystems can assume that with just a reference on the page, then > it will not be truncated. Yes I understand. Need to check for this, but I'm not sure how we can reliably detect it based on the struct page alone. I guess we have to look at the mapping. > So I think it would be a good idea to exclude buffercache from > here completely until it can be shown to be safe. Actually you Agreed. Just need to figure out how. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.