[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090602140545.GP1065@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:05:45 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, hugh@...itas.com,
riel@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, chris.mason@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler in the VM v3
> I was kind of thinking about we could SIGKILL them as they try
> to access it or fsync it. But then the question is how long to
> keep SIGKILLing? At one end of the scale you could do stupid
> and simple and have another error flag in the mapping to do
> the SIGKILL just once for the next read/write/fsync etc. Or
It's pretty radical to SIGKILL on a IO error.
Perhaps we can make fsync give EIO again in this case
with a new mapping flag. The question would be when
to clear that flag again. Probably devil in the details.
> at the other end, you keep the page in the pagecache and
> poisoned, and kill everyone until the page is explicitly truncated
> by userspace. I don't really know...
We do that for the swapcache to avoid a similar problem, but
it's more a hack than a good solution. I think it would be
worse for the page cache, because if you stop the program
then there's no reason to keep that around.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists