Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned
To:     Aili Yao <yaoaili@kingsoft.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SE9SSUdVQ0hJIE5BT1lBKCDloIDlj6Mg55u05LmfKQ==?= 
        <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>
Cc:     "tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "inux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <inux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "yangfeng1@kingsoft.com" <yangfeng1@kingsoft.com>
References: <20210224151619.67c29731@alex-virtual-machine>
 <20210224103105.GA16368@linux> <20210225114329.4e1a41c6@alex-virtual-machine>
 <20210225112818.GA10141@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
 <20210225113930.GA7227@localhost.localdomain>
 <20210331185637.76f863e2@alex-virtual-machine>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat GmbH
Message-ID: <0d6f0f9c-f644-1246-0530-e39656a207ca@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:58:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210331185637.76f863e2@alex-virtual-machine>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 31.03.21 12:56, Aili Yao wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:39:30 +0100
> Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:28:18AM +0000, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
>>> Hi Aili,
>>>
>>> I agree that this set_mce_nospec() is not expected to be called for
>>> "already hwpoisoned" page because in the reported case the error
>>> page is already contained and no need to resort changing cache mode.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what is the current behavour now?
>> Say we have an ongoing MCE which has marked the page as HWPoison but
>> memory_failure did not take any action on the page yet.
>> And then, we have another MCE, which ends up there.
>> set_mce_nospec might clear _PAGE_PRESENT bit.
>>
>> Does that have any impact on the first MCE?
>>
>>> It seems to me that memory_failure() does not return MF_XXX.  But yes,
>>> returning some positive value for the reported case could be a solution.
>>
>> No, you are right. I somehow managed to confuse myself.
>> I see now that MF_XXX return codes are filtered out in page_action.
>>
>>> We could use some negative value (error code) to report the reported case,
>>> then as you mentioned above, some callers need change to handle the
>>> new case, and the same is true if you use some positive value.
>>> My preference is -EHWPOISON, but other options are fine if justified well.
>>
>> -EHWPOISON seems like a good fit.
>>
> 
> Hi Oscar, david:
> 
> Long away fron this topic, but i noticed today I made a stupid mistake that EHWPOISON is already
> been declared, so we should better return EHWPOISON for this case.
> 
> Really sorry for this!
> 
> As the patch is still under review, I will post a new version for this, if I change this, may I add
> your review tag here please?

Just resend as v2. We will review and post our RBs there.


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb