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;
Date:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:40:57 +0800
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc:     naoya.horiguchi@nec.com, hughd@google.com,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, willy@infradead.org,
        osalvador@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 0/5] Solve silent data loss caused by poisoned
 page cache (shmem/tmpfs)
Message-ID: <YWZHOYgFrMYbmNA/@t490s>
References: <20210930215311.240774-1-shy828301@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210930215311.240774-1-shy828301@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:53:06PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> Yang Shi (5):
>       mm: hwpoison: remove the unnecessary THP check
>       mm: filemap: check if THP has hwpoisoned subpage for PMD page fault
>       mm: hwpoison: refactor refcount check handling
>       mm: shmem: don't truncate page if memory failure happens
>       mm: hwpoison: handle non-anonymous THP correctly

Today I just noticed one more thing: unpoison path has (unpoison_memory):

	if (page_mapping(page)) {
		unpoison_pr_info("Unpoison: the hwpoison page has non-NULL mapping %#lx\n",
				 pfn, &unpoison_rs);
		return 0;
	}

I _think_ it was used to make sure we ignore page that was not successfully
poisoned/offlined before (for anonymous), so raising this question up on
whether we should make sure e.g. shmem hwpoisoned pages still can be unpoisoned
for debugging purposes.

-- 
Peter Xu