[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090603102151.GM11363@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:21:51 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"hugh@...itas.com" <hugh@...itas.com>,
"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"chris.mason@...cle.com" <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler
in the VM v3
On Tue, Jun 02 2009, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > And then this is possible because you aren't violating mm
> > assumptions due to 1b. This proceeds just as the existing
> > pagecache mce error handler case which exists now.
>
> Yeah that's a good scheme - we are talking about two interception
> scheme. Mine is passive one and yours is active one.
>
> passive: check hwpoison pages at __generic_make_request()/elv_next_request()
> (the code will be enabled by an mce_bad_io_pages counter)
That's not a feasible approach at all, it'll add O(N) scan of a bio at
queue time. Ditto for the elv_next_request() approach.
What would be cheaper is to check the pages at dma map time, since you
have to scan the request anyway. That means putting it in
blk_rq_map_sg() or similar.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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