xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE 981498 - use KM_MAYFAIL in xfs_mountfs

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TAKE 981498 - use KM_MAYFAIL in xfs_mountfs
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 06:22:56 +1000
Cc: Bhagi rathi <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx>, Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, sgi.bugs.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <489A01B0.5050606@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Bhagi rathi <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx>, Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, sgi.bugs.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20080806054121.CB2F258C52A4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <cc7060690808061022i1dce01dfx9e43ad3a75e5c936@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <489A01B0.5050606@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 02:55:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Bhagi rathi wrote:
> > Why are we going to block for ever? Mounting a file-system
> > requires in-core log space buffers, reading of other buffers
> > which needs allocation of memory greater than per ag
> > structures.
.....
> In general KM_MAYFAIL sounds like a good plan when you can handle the
> failure gracefully, I think.

Yes, and that is the long term plan - to remove all KM_SLEEP
allocations from XFS and allow them to fail gracefully. There's
lots of work needed before we get there, though. e.g.
right now we cannot survive an ENOMEM error in a transaction....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>