On 2024/12/1 14:59, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 14:25:14 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> Yup, this will be a good alternative. But will it be better to simply check PagePoisoned() instead? >>>>> >>>>> The memmap of offline memory sections shall not be touched, so .... don't touch it ;) >>>>> >>>>> Especially because that PagePoisoned() check is non-sensical without poisoining-during-memmap-init. You would still work with memory in offline sections. >>>>> >>>>> I think the code is even wrong in that regard: we allow for memory offlining to work with HWPoisoned pages, see __offline_isolated_pages(). Staring at unpoison_memory(), we might be putting these pages back to the buddy? Which is completely wrong. >>>> >>>> I agree with you. Thanks for detailed explanation. :) >>>> Thanks David. >>> >>> So ... I assume there will be a new patch? :) >> >> I was just back from my two-weeks holidays. ;) I will try to send a new version when possible. > > Maybe I missed the v2. I'll drop this v1 patch. Sorry about that but it slipped from my mind. Will send v2 when free. Thanks. .
