Re: [PATCH] [6/16] HWPOISON: Add various poison checks in mm/memory.c

Nick Piggin
2009-06-09T12:35:43Z

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 08:21:31PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 06:25:04PM +0800, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 08:46:38PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > Bail out early when hardware poisoned pages are found in page fault handling.
> > > Since they are poisoned they should not be mapped freshly into processes,
> > > because that would cause another (potentially deadly) machine check
> > >
> > > This is generally handled in the same way as OOM, just a different
> > > error code is returned to the architecture code.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > mm/memory.c | 3 +++
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > Index: linux/mm/memory.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux.orig/mm/memory.c 2009-06-03 19:36:23.000000000 +0200
> > > +++ linux/mm/memory.c 2009-06-03 19:36:23.000000000 +0200
> > > @@ -2797,6 +2797,9 @@
> > > if (unlikely(ret & (VM_FAULT_ERROR | VM_FAULT_NOPAGE)))
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > + if (unlikely(PageHWPoison(vmf.page)))
> > > + return VM_FAULT_HWPOISON;
> >
> > Again, it would be nice if you just worry about this in your MCE
> > handler and don't sprinkle things like this in fastpaths.
>
> For this patch, I cannot imagine a clear usage case for it, and
> proposed to remove it until there comes a case.

Yes I didn't see some of your review comments and made some
of these comments first. If this is gone then I'm happy :)