On 16.10.19 10:27, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:56:19AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 16.10.19 09:09, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
Hi,
I wrote a simple cleanup for parameter of soft_offline_page(),
based on thread https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/11/57.
I know that we need more cleanup on hwpoison-inject, but I think
that will be mentioned in re-write patchset Oscar is preparing now.
So let me shared only this part as a separate one now.
...
I think you should rebase that patch on linux-next (where the
pfn_to_online_page() check is in place). I assume you'll want to move the
pfn_to_online_page() check into soft_offline_page() then as well?
I rebased to next-20191016. And yes, we will move pfn_to_online_page()
into soft offline code. It seems that we can also move pfn_valid(),
but is simply moving like below good enough for you?
At least I can't am the patch to current next/master (due to
pfn_to_online_page()).
@@ -1877,11 +1877,17 @@ static int soft_offline_free_page(struct page *page)
* This is not a 100% solution for all memory, but tries to be
* ``good enough'' for the majority of memory.
*/
-int soft_offline_page(struct page *page, int flags)
+int soft_offline_page(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
{
int ret;
- unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
+ struct page *page;
+ if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
+ return -ENXIO;
+ /* Only online pages can be soft-offlined (esp., not ZONE_DEVICE). */
+ if (!pfn_to_online_page(pfn))
+ return -EIO;
+ page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
if (is_zone_device_page(page)) {
pr_debug_ratelimited("soft_offline: %#lx page is device page\n",
pfn);
--
Or we might have an option to do as memory_failure() does like below:
In contrast to soft offlining, memory failure can deal with devmem. So I
think the above makes sense.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
