Re: [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned

David Hildenbrand
2021-03-31T11:00:09Z

On 31.03.21 12:56, Aili Yao wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:39:30 +0100
> Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:28:18AM +0000, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
>>> Hi Aili,
>>>
>>> I agree that this set_mce_nospec() is not expected to be called for
>>> "already hwpoisoned" page because in the reported case the error
>>> page is already contained and no need to resort changing cache mode.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what is the current behavour now?
>> Say we have an ongoing MCE which has marked the page as HWPoison but
>> memory_failure did not take any action on the page yet.
>> And then, we have another MCE, which ends up there.
>> set_mce_nospec might clear _PAGE_PRESENT bit.
>>
>> Does that have any impact on the first MCE?
>>
>>> It seems to me that memory_failure() does not return MF_XXX. But yes,
>>> returning some positive value for the reported case could be a solution.
>>
>> No, you are right. I somehow managed to confuse myself.
>> I see now that MF_XXX return codes are filtered out in page_action.
>>
>>> We could use some negative value (error code) to report the reported case,
>>> then as you mentioned above, some callers need change to handle the
>>> new case, and the same is true if you use some positive value.
>>> My preference is -EHWPOISON, but other options are fine if justified well.
>>
>> -EHWPOISON seems like a good fit.
>>
>
> Hi Oscar, david:
>
> Long away fron this topic, but i noticed today I made a stupid mistake that EHWPOISON is already
> been declared, so we should better return EHWPOISON for this case.
>
> Really sorry for this!
>
> As the patch is still under review, I will post a new version for this, if I change this, may I add
> your review tag here please?

Just resend as v2. We will review and post our RBs there.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb