On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:51:47AM -0800, Sidhartha Kumar wrote: > On 1/11/24 9:34 AM, Jiaqi Yan wrote: > > > - if (!folio_test_has_hwpoisoned(folio)) > > > + if (!folio_test_hwpoison(folio)) > > > > Sidhartha, just curious why this change is needed? Does > > PageHasHWPoisoned change after commit > > "a08c7193e4f18dc8508f2d07d0de2c5b94cb39a3"? > > No its not an issue PageHasHWPoisoned(), the original code is testing for > the wrong flag and I realized that has_hwpoison and hwpoison are two > different flags. The memory-failure code calls folio_test_set_hwpoison() to > set the hwpoison flag and does not set the has_hwpoison flag. When > debugging, I realized this if statement was never true despite the code > hitting folio_test_set_hwpoison(). Now we are testing the correct flag. > > From page-flags.h > > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE > PG_hwpoison, /* hardware poisoned page. Don't touch */ > #endif > > folio_test_hwpoison() checks this flag ^^^ > > /* At least one page in this folio has the hwpoison flag set */ > PG_has_hwpoisoned = PG_error, > > while folio_test_has_hwpoisoned() checks this flag ^^^ So what you're saying is that hugetlb behaves differently from THP with how memory-failure sets the flags?
