Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-180889-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 12:11:06 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To: Jane Chu <jane.chu@oracle.com>
Cc: linmiaohe@huawei.com, nao.horiguchi@gmail.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm/memory-failure: move hwpoison_filter() higher
 up
Message-ID: <ZkXbugsIzSWkBk6w@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20240510062602.901510-1-jane.chu@oracle.com>
 <20240510062602.901510-5-jane.chu@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240510062602.901510-5-jane.chu@oracle.com>

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:26:01AM -0600, Jane Chu wrote:
> Move hwpoison_filter() higher up as there is no need to spend a lot
> cycles only to find out later that the page is supposed to be skipped
> for hwpoison handling.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@oracle.com>
> ---
>  mm/memory-failure.c | 15 +++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index 62133c10fb51..2fa884d8b5a3 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -2236,6 +2236,13 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
>  		goto unlock_mutex;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (hwpoison_filter(p)) {
> +		if (flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)
> +			put_page(p);
> +		res = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +		goto unlock_mutex;
> +	}

Now, it is true that doing this might not be optimal for the reasons
explained by Miaohe, but the whole hwpoison_filter() thing is only used
by the hwpoison-inject code AFAICS, which is just for testing purposes,
so I do not think there is any harm in lifting the check.

But no real strong opinion here.


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs