Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: memory-failure: add soft-offline stat in mf_stats

[jane . chu]

> > > And
> > > 1. total = recovered + ignored + failed + delayed
> > > 2. recovered = soft_offline + hard_offline
> > Do you mean mf_stats now have 7 entries in sysfs?
> > (total, ignored, failed, delayed, recovered, hard_offline, soft_offline, then recovered = hard_offline + soft_offline)
> > Or 6 entries ? (in that case, hard_offline = recovered - soft_offline)
> > It might be simpler to understand for user if total is just the sum of other entries like this RFC,
> > but I'd like to know other opinions.
> Will it be better to have below items?
> "
> total
> ignored
> failed
> dalayed
> hard_offline
> soft_offline
> "

The existing "ignored, failed, delayed, recovered" apply to UEs while 
"soft_offline" applies to CE. The difference between UE and CE is that 
even a recovered UE page has PG_hwpoison set, but a soft offlined page 
does not and thus could be re-deployed.

So if we want to flag CE pages, they seem to belong to a different 
category, something like -

/sys/devices/system/node/node0/memory_failure/Uncorrected/{ignored, delayed, failed, recovered}
/sys/devices/system/node/node0/memory_failure/Corrected/{offlined}

Thanks,

-jane

> though this will break the previous interface.
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
> .