From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout06.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout06.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E35F3EC807 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2026 12:14:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.221 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786623281; cv=none; b=eiJXqwYWAkjbC2eH9LD1C03CiIFec0PsibVoHGdBXyQl/k56hlgVyV1joxKXOjQRYzbsP3SxzLv2H/cPOLCccT8UZkOquqSvxKEJMKQr+/t0X3UfOLUbsnpy7zoBxaKZsqcSFH2OZ5lPj2LQiGNvvkdgfggwLfSL1IKWaW1ekag= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786623281; c=relaxed/simple; bh=weqnfNbDnNc5bG1hKr46hwJMOTtazSogYKxSdhLLQfw=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=lJMH8iiBJuYLk80xr6lb20Yi65RMYRKHizf0yxgJSHusvfYlNAhV8nwObQZF0471KJGKQaodqIY41hDa++6JlWt4k6cfuLljxVVbddTC8QVq8S4rGqKmguuklewstfF+abjDhR3YHXpNryOXAp0iGxwoLaK2LfKeq3q2YyFY1yw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=LmsUJYyr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.221 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="LmsUJYyr" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=5mar/IZUE5TjogPRooZ5SINIofEJGtSownXYdjfo6Ro=; b=LmsUJYyrGitcmIsyyXrtGOdPNNJuOobKfjvVIu4aXV3JGdz05w4E/VKfaK8NQlEkF40+Eelmf LQ8PPhbTs5OlFT6GjvECzNFSGU3fYheCDOx94qL5EejepG+S94T44Vma5oAeimmBqhy5tIMSK4E W6SMdxYZsHnyHwDaQCA1hZs= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.144]) by canpmsgout06.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4hLPCd75WPzRhR0; Thu, 13 Aug 2026 20:03:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggemv705-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [10.3.19.32]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA8E54056D; Thu, 13 Aug 2026 20:14:33 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemq500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.235) by dggemv705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 13 Aug 2026 20:14:33 +0800 Received: from [10.173.124.160] (10.173.124.160) by kwepemq500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.235) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 13 Aug 2026 20:14:32 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/Kconfig: allow user to select MIGRATION if MEMORY_FAILURE is enabled To: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" , Xie Yuanbin , "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <837c2e83-ad5f-42f5-afef-5132e02fc19a@kernel.org> <20260813092343.214324-1-xieyuanbin1@huawei.com> From: Miaohe Lin Message-ID: <83554fb5-d105-56da-dbe4-68fde533199a@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 20:14:31 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems200001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.67) To kwepemq500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.235) On 2026/8/13 17:32, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 05:23:43PM +0800, Xie Yuanbin wrote: >> Thanks for replying. >> >> On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:11:11 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 8/13/26 09:23, Xie Yuanbin wrote: >>>> I think that just making MEMORY_FAILURE select MIGRATION is also a very >>>> good solution, and I respect the maintainers' opinion. >>> >>> There must be a good reason to do something fine grained like >>> MEMORY_FAILURE_MIGRATON, really. >>> >>> So if there is a use case out there that absolutely doesn't want >>> CONFIG_MIGRATION but does want CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE, we could discuss it. >> >> At least so far, I haven't encountered such a use case. >> >>> As really only softdirty needs page migration (IIRC), we could also just put >>> that under a separate config that implies CONFIG_MIGRATION, like >>> CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE_SOFT_OFFLINE. But I'd rather avoid that unless really >>> required. >> >> Okay, I understand it now. Making MEMORY_FAILURE select MIGRATION should >> be enough. > > Agreed with all that David says, and yes that seems the best way. +1. Thanks all. . > > > -- > Cheers, Lorenzo > . >