Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] Userspace Can Control Memory Failure Recovery

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] Userspace Can Control Memory Failure Recovery
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:02:17 -0300
Cc: nao.horiguchi@xxxxxxxxx, linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx, tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx, wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx, jane.chu@xxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, osalvador@xxxxxxx, rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx, duenwen@xxxxxxxxxx, jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx, ankita@xxxxxxxxxx, peterx@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20240924043924.3562257-1-jiaqiyan@google.com>
References: <20240924043924.3562257-1-jiaqiyan@google.com>

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 04:39:18AM +0000, Jiaqi Yan wrote:

> So far I personally prefer the global MFR policy but open to feedbacks to both
> options, or new ideas.

Why? It seems more natural that only processe that can handle the
SIGBUS semantics would opt into them?

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] Userspace Can Control Memory Failure Recovery
  - From: Jiaqi Yan

References:
- [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] Userspace Can Control Memory Failure Recovery
  - From: Jiaqi Yan

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v8 16/29] rust: alloc: implement kernel `Vec` type
Next by Date: [PATCH] gup: Convert FOLL_TOUCH case in follow_page_pte() to folio
Previous by thread: [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] docs: mm: add enable_hard_offline sysctl
Next by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] Userspace Can Control Memory Failure Recovery
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux ARM Kernel] [Linux ARM] [Linux Omap] [Fedora ARM] [IETF Annouce] [Bugtraq] [Linux OMAP] [Linux MIPS] [eCos] [Asterisk Internet PBX] [Linux API]

Powered by Linux