From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66F3CA9EA0 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:26:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FDD2205ED for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:26:14 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7FDD2205ED Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 347A36B0006; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2F84C6B0007; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:26:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 25C5A6B0008; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:26:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0090.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.90]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070596B0006 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 67A0F4DC2 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:26:13 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76070738226.15.camp41_707f2a92f7b26 X-HE-Tag: camp41_707f2a92f7b26 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1527 Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf45.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:26:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB077AFF1; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:26:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:26:11 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Oscar Salvador 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: <20191022082611.GD9379@dhcp22.suse.cz> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191022074615.GA19060@linux> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000148, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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)? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs