| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: TAKE 981498 - Use KM_NOFS for debug trace buffers, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TAKE 981498 - Use KM_NOFS for debug trace buffers, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: TAKE 981498 - use KM_MAYFAIL in xfs_mountfs, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: TAKE 981498 - use KM_MAYFAIL in xfs_mountfs, Bhagi rathi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |