On 2025/1/20 16:01, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 16.01.25 07:16, Wupeng Ma wrote: >> From: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> If a folio has an increased reference count, folio_try_get() will acquire >> it, perform necessary operations, and then release it. In the case of a >> poisoned folio without an elevated reference count (which is unlikely for >> memory-failure), folio_try_get() will simply bypass it. >> >> Therefore, relocate the folio_try_get() function, responsible for checking >> and acquiring this reference count at first. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 14 ++++---------- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c >> index 2815bd4ea483..3fb75ee185c6 100644 >> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c >> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c >> @@ -1786,6 +1786,9 @@ static void do_migrate_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn) >> page = pfn_to_page(pfn); >> folio = page_folio(page); >> + if (!folio_try_get(folio)) >> + continue; >> + > > I would only move it in front of the folio_test_hwpoison() check for now. Note that with this patch as is the comment below would be wrong Thanks for notice this. Move it in front of the folio_test_hwpoison() do seems better. > >> /* >> * No reference or lock is held on the folio, so it might > > ^ > > I would move this patch before the current #2, so the folio_lock() looks less weird. > Ok, will be done. Thanks.
