[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1493116513.2758.1.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 06:35:13 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, osd-dev@...n-osd.org,
linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org,
ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
jack@...e.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, corbet@....net,
neilb@...e.de, clm@...com, tytso@....edu, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/20] fuse: set mapping error in writepage_locked
when it fails
On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 10:17 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 24-04-17 13:14:36, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 18:04 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 24-04-17 09:22:49, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > This ensures that we see errors on fsync when writeback fails.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> > >
> > > Hum, but do we really want to clobber mapping errors with temporary stuff
> > > like ENOMEM? Or do you want to handle that in mapping_set_error?
> > >
> >
> > Right now we don't really have such a thing as temporary errors in the
> > writeback codepath. If you return an error here, the data doesn't stay
> > dirty or anything, and I think we want to ensure that that gets reported
> > via fsync.
> >
> > I'd like to see us add better handling for retryable errors for stuff
> > like ENOMEM or EAGAIN. I think this is the first step toward that
> > though. Once we have more consistent handling of writeback errors in
> > general, then we can start doing more interesting things with retryable
> > errors.
> >
> > So yeah, I this is the right thing to do for now.
>
> OK, fair enough. And question number 2):
>
> Who is actually responsible for setting the error in the mapping when error
> happens inside ->writepage()? Is it the ->writepage() callback or the
> caller of ->writepage()? Or something else? Currently it seems to be a
> strange mix (e.g. mm/page-writeback.c: __writepage() calls
> mapping_set_error() when ->writepage() returns error) so I'd like to
> understand what's the plan and have that recorded in the changelogs.
>
That's an excellent question.
I think we probably want the writepage/launder_page operations to call
mapping_set_error. That makes it possible for filesystems (e.g. NFS) to
handle their own error tracking and reporting without using the new
infrastructure. If they never call mapping_set_error then we'll always
just return whatever their ->fsync operation returns on an fsync.
I'll make another pass through the tree and see whether we have some
mapping_set_error calls that should be removed, and will flesh out
vfs.txt to state this. Maybe that file needs a whole section on
writeback error reporting? Hmmm...
That probably also means that I should drop patch 8 from this series
(mm: ensure that we set mapping error if writeout fails), since that
should be happening in writepage already.
> >
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/fuse/file.c | 1 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> > > > index ec238fb5a584..07d0efcb050c 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> > > > @@ -1669,6 +1669,7 @@ static int fuse_writepage_locked(struct page *page)
> > > > err_free:
> > > > fuse_request_free(req);
> > > > err:
> > > > + mapping_set_error(page->mapping, error);
> > > > end_page_writeback(page);
> > > > return error;
> > > > }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.9.3
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists