On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:39:30 +0100 Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx> 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? -- Thanks! Aili Yao
