[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100601142822.GW9453@laptop>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:28:22 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Christof Schmitt <christof.schmitt@...ibm.com>,
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Wrong DIF guard tag on ext2 write
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:50:29AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "James" == James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de> writes:
>
> James> Would it be too much work in the fs to mark the page dirty before
> James> you begin altering it (and again after you finish, just in case
> James> some cleaner noticed and initiated a write)? Or some other flag
> James> that indicates page under modification? All the process
> James> controlling the writeout (which is pretty high up in the stack)
> James> needs to know is if we triggered the check error by altering the
> James> page while it was in flight.
>
> James> I agree that a block based retry would close all the holes ... it
> James> just doesn't look elegant to me that the fs will already be
> James> repeating the I/O if it changed the page and so will block.
>
> I experimented with this approach a while back. However, I quickly got
> into a situation where frequently updated blocks never made it to disk
> because the page was constantly being updated. And all writes failed
> with a guard tag error.
What if you bounce in the case of a first guard error?
--
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