[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090604052738.GR1065@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:27:38 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"npiggin@...e.de" <npiggin@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [10/16] HWPOISON: Handle poisoned pages in set_page_dirty()
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:36:21AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 02:46:43AM +0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > Bail out early in set_page_dirty for poisoned pages. We don't want any
> > of the dirty accounting done or file system write back started, because
> > the page will be just thrown away.
>
> I'm afraid this patch is not necessary and could be harmful.
>
> It is not necessary because a poisoned page will normally already be
> isolated from page cache, or likely cannot be isolated because it has
> dirty buffers.
Hmm I think I had a case when I originally wrote the code where it was needed.
But I can't clearly remember now what it was.
But you're right the page cache isolation should normally take care of it.
> It is harmful because it put the page into dirty state without queuing
> it for IO by moving it to s_io. When more normal pages are dirtied
> later, __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() won't move the inode into s_io,
> hence delaying the writeback of good pages for arbitrary long time.
That's a good point.
I dropped the patch for now.
-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