On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:55:29 -0800 "Luck, Tony" <tony.l...@intel.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation and test code. I think I see better what > is going on here. > > [I took your idea for using madvise(...MADV_HWPOISON) and added a new "-S" > option to my einj_mem_uc test program to use madvise instead of ACPI/EINJ > for injections. Update pushed here: > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/aegl/ras-tools.git ] > > There have been some small changes to arch/x86/mm/fault.c since you wrote > the patch. Can you rebase to v5.11-rc5? Yes, I will rebase it to newest version. > Also maybe this might be a case to use IS_ENABLED() instead of #ifdef to > make the code a little less ugly. At least for the 2nd hunk in your patch > this would work well: > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE) && > (fault & (VM_FAULT_HWPOISON|VM_FAULT_HWPOISON_LARGE))) > no_context(regs, error_code, address, SIGBUS, BUS_MCEERR_AR); > else > no_context(regs, error_code, address, SIGBUS, BUS_ADRERR); > > The first hunk might need a bit more thought. > Do you mean the force_sig_mceerr and force_sig_fault difference? I see a hwpoison related comment there, but it's better to follow the usual way force_sig_mceerr, I will modify this in a v2 patch. Or something other, you may post a better one. Thanks -- Best Regards! Aili Yao
