Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2022 10:33:45 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To:     Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Jane Chu <jane.chu@oracle.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] mm/hwpoison: introduce per-memory_block hwpoison
 counter
Message-ID: <Y0fNaYGvnMdwHkg1@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20221007010706.2916472-1-naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev>
 <20221007010706.2916472-5-naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221007010706.2916472-5-naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 10:07:06AM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>
> 
> Currently PageHWPoison flag does not behave well when experiencing memory
> hotremove/hotplug.  Any data field in struct page is unreliable when the
> associated memory is offlined, and the current mechanism can't tell whether
> a memory block is onlined because a new memory devices is installed or
> because previous failed offline operations are undone.  Especially if
> there's a hwpoisoned memory, it's unclear what the best option is.
> 
> So introduce a new mechanism to make struct memory_block remember that
> a memory block has hwpoisoned memory inside it. And make any online event
> fail if the onlining memory block contains hwpoison.  struct memory_block
> is freed and reallocated over ACPI-based hotremove/hotplug, but not over
> sysfs-based hotremove/hotplug.  So the new counter can distinguish these
> cases.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>

I glanzed over it and looks good overall.
Have a small question though:

> @@ -864,6 +878,7 @@ void remove_memory_block_devices(unsigned long start, unsigned long size)
>  		mem = find_memory_block_by_id(block_id);
>  		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!mem))
>  			continue;
> +		num_poisoned_pages_sub(-1UL, memblk_nr_poison(mem));

Why does num_poisoned_pages_sub() have to make this distinction (!-1 == -1)
for the hot-remove stage?


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs