[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090612100716.GE25568@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:07:16 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
"chris.mason@...cle.com" <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] HWPOISON: report sticky EIO for poisoned file
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:22:43PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> This makes the EIO reports on write(), fsync(), or the NFS close()
> sticky enough. The only way to get rid of it may be
>
> echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>
> Note that the impacted process will only be killed if it mapped the page.
> XXX
> via read()/write()/fsync() instead of memory mapped reads/writes, simply
> because it's very hard to find them.
I don't like the special case bit. Conceptually we shouldn't need
to handle hwpoison specially here; it's just like a standard error.
It makes hwpoison look more intrusive than it really is :)
I think it would be better to simply make
the standard EIO sticky; that would fix a lot of other issues too (e.g.
better reporting of metadata errors) But that's something for post .31.
For .31 I think hwpoison can live fine with non sticky errors; it was
more a problem of the test suite anyways which we worked around.
So better drop this 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