[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45CCF33F.1000605@yahoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:18:39 +0100
From: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@...oo.fr>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.21
Andrew Morton a écrit :
> factor-outstanding-i-o-error-handling.patch
> factor-outstanding-i-o-error-handling-tidy.patch
>
I still like them. But the original problem is still present.
> sync_sb_inodes-propagate-errors.patch
>
You explained in http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/2/238 that the mapping
flags should be set at the lowest level, but with this change I have a
hard time choosing a place to stick it. I don't like when a function
both sets the mapping flags and returns an error code, I think it should
be mutually exclusive, so that we know what to do (propagate the return
code?) and what to expect (are the mapping flags up to date?), which
seemed to be the case before this patch. For instance there is no point
in propagating an error return code up to sys_sync() as it can only drop it.
The call trace that cleared the flags, the origin of the problem, is:
void do_sync(1)
void sync_inodes(1)
void __sync_inodes(1)
void sync_inodes_sb(sb, 1)
void sync_sb_inodes(sb, WB_SYNC_ALL)
int __writeback_single_inode(inode, WB_SYNC_ALL)
int __sync_single_inode(inode, WB_SYNC_ALL)
int filemap_fdatawait(mapping)
int wait_on_page_writeback_range(mapping)
int test_and_clear(...)
re-setting the flag at a too low level, would mean it is still set after
a msync() or fsync() that could return the status to its caller. My
interpretation is that low level functions up to
__writeback_single_inode() can be used by fsync() and the like that can
return the error to their caller, unlike high level functions starting
at sync_sb_inodes() that don't need a return value as their caller can
do nothing with it. So re-setting the flag in sync_sb_inodes() just
after __writeback_single_inode() looks right to me, and I propose the
exact same patch as the first time.
> block_write_full_page-handle-enospc.patch
>
It seems to me that __block_write_full_page is always called more or
less directly from __mpage_writepage, and the latter handles enospc in
the mapping flags. So I am not sure this patch is needed.
Thanks.
--
Guillaume
View attachment "sync_sb_inodes_handle_error.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2200 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists