Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] ARM: memory-failure: not select RAS and MEMORY_ISOLATION
From: David Hildenbrand <hidden>
Date: 2025-09-22 08:15:15
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On 22.09.25 04:14, Xie Yuanbin wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
For memory-failure on ARM, these features do not seem necessary. Signed-off-by: Xie Yuanbin <redacted> --- mm/Kconfig | 4 ++-- mm/memory-failure.c | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig index 034a1662d8c1..22eefc4747d5 100644 --- a/mm/Kconfig +++ b/mm/Kconfig@@ -742,22 +742,22 @@ config DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR This value can be changed after boot using the /proc/sys/vm/mmap_min_addr tunable. config ARCH_SUPPORTS_MEMORY_FAILURE bool config MEMORY_FAILURE depends on MMU depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_MEMORY_FAILURE bool "Enable recovery from hardware memory errors" - select MEMORY_ISOLATION - select RAS + select MEMORY_ISOLATION if !ARM + select RAS if !ARM
I'm trying to figure out why we need MEMORY_ISOLATION at all.
MEMORY_ISOLATION is mostly required for memory offlining and
alloc_contig_range()/cma -- it controls the availability of the
"isolate" bit in the pageblock.
What CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE soft-offline support wants is migrate_pages()
support. But that comes with CONFIG_MIGRATION.
And isolate_folio_to_list() has nothing to do with CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION.
We added that "select MEMORY_ISOLATION" in commit ee6f509c3274 ("mm:
factor out memory isolate functions").
Turns out we remove the need for that in add05cecef80 ("mm:
soft-offline: don't free target page in successful page migration")
where we removed the calls to set_migratetype_isolate() etc.
Can you send a patch to remove the "select MEMORY_ISOLATION" independent
of any arm changes?
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb