On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 6:56 PM Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx> > > With the introduction of mf_mutex, most of memory error handling > process is mutually exclusive, so the in-line comment about > subtlety about double-checking PageHWPoison is no more correct. > So remove it. > > Suggested-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/memory-failure.c | 6 ------ > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c > index 4c9bd1d37301..a6a1e02759e7 100644 > --- a/mm/memory-failure.c > +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c > @@ -2146,12 +2146,6 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page) > .gfp_mask = GFP_USER | __GFP_MOVABLE | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL, > }; > > - /* > - * Check PageHWPoison again inside page lock because PageHWPoison > - * is set by memory_failure() outside page lock. Note that > - * memory_failure() also double-checks PageHWPoison inside page lock, > - * so there's no race between soft_offline_page() and memory_failure(). > - */ > lock_page(page); > if (!PageHuge(page)) > wait_on_page_writeback(page); > -- > 2.25.1 > >
