Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:35:17 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 10/16] mm,hwpoison: Rework soft offline for free
 pages
Message-ID: <20191022083505.GA19708@linux>
References: <20191017142123.24245-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20191017142123.24245-11-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20191018120615.GM5017@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20191021125842.GA11330@linux>
 <20191021154158.GV9379@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20191022074615.GA19060@linux>
 <20191022082611.GD9379@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191022082611.GD9379@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:26:11AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 22-10-19 09:46:20, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> [...]
> > So, opposite to hard-offline, in soft-offline we do not fiddle with pages
> > unless we are sure the page is not reachable anymore by any means.
> 
> I have to say I do not follow. Is there any _real_ reason for
> soft-offline to behave differenttly from MCE (hard-offline)?

Yes.
Do not take it as 100% true as I read that in some code/Documentation
a while ago.

But I think that it boils down to:

soft-offline: "We have seen some erros in the underlying page, but
               it is still usable, so we have a chance to keep the
               the contents (via migration)"
hard-offline: "The underlying page is dead, we cannot trust it, so
               we shut it down, killing whoever is holding it
               along the way".

Am I wrong Naoya?

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3