> Are you suggesting you prefer the per-VMA policy, or proposing a new > "per-process policy" added via prctl? By "per-process", I imagine the > policy to keep or offline the poisoned page will apply to all its > VMAs? A "per-process policy" using prctl already exists. See prctl(PR_MCE_KILL). Currently used to choose whether to eagerly send SIGBUS to a process when a memory error is discovered asynchronously by a h/w patrol scrubber. What is the use case for a per-VMA policy? Do you have some application that would like to use this? -Tony
