On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 08:09:24PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 7:41 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:53:06PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > Yang Shi (5):
> > > mm: hwpoison: remove the unnecessary THP check
> > > mm: filemap: check if THP has hwpoisoned subpage for PMD page fault
> > > mm: hwpoison: refactor refcount check handling
> > > mm: shmem: don't truncate page if memory failure happens
> > > mm: hwpoison: handle non-anonymous THP correctly
> >
> > Today I just noticed one more thing: unpoison path has (unpoison_memory):
> >
> > if (page_mapping(page)) {
> > unpoison_pr_info("Unpoison: the hwpoison page has non-NULL mapping %#lx\n",
> > pfn, &unpoison_rs);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > I _think_ it was used to make sure we ignore page that was not successfully
> > poisoned/offlined before (for anonymous), so raising this question up on
> > whether we should make sure e.g. shmem hwpoisoned pages still can be unpoisoned
> > for debugging purposes.
>
> Yes, not only mapping, the refcount check is not right if page cache
> page is kept in page cache instead of being truncated after this
> series. But actually unpoison has been broken since commit
> 0ed950d1f28142ccd9a9453c60df87853530d778 ("mm,hwpoison: make
> get_hwpoison_page() call get_any_page()"). And Naoya said in the
> commit "unpoison_memory() is also unchanged because it's broken and
> need thorough fixes (will be done later)."
>
> I do have some fixes in my tree to unblock tests and fix unpoison for
> this series (just make it work for testing). Naoya may have some ideas
> in mind and it is just a debugging feature so I don't think it must be
> fixed in this series. It could be done later. I could add a TODO
> section in the cover letter to make this more clear.
I see, that sounds good enough to me. Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
