[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: "Bhagi rathi" <jahnu77@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 22:48:46 +0530
Cc: "Lachlan McIlroy" <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, sgi.bugs.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=PXZ4XiFcR0ho2hDiSGvoK6BFKOOvfu+rk2SMGuFwZoE=; b=BkmkoLomBhVmjuXEPVaF/Koek0lNYiZZeu3TDrmngCv4sjL+s+P2fxVU828oHxIumA wSsQelO5jmhr1Z8SqyiUOoTBD9XcUjSktXfbMEr81fVLRuAbLUHItqyS/7FKYd6SdMHl CCJOgoE9d05S4ipvBx9LqIaqAABmo2zrffmaQ=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=VlCUFEokbSYeqY3grGb9ghqj4okckE5Ki3IeEml7oO9jPHqTENyTSp9wpfDNQYXIdv MDkzUM6BYyvzUM65PwHpcxvPPdwiqfni9IQtyS6Tk4rBy2wbOIaiAIj+M6wGCpo1/SOS Ul3tI7rrUqr37O7bH4TKNLBdBuC5wz8KifJMA=
In-reply-to: <489A01B0.5050606@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20080806054121.CB2F258C52A4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <cc7060690808061022i1dce01dfx9e43ad3a75e5c936@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <489A01B0.5050606@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
> >
> > I am trying to understand why xfs_perag_t? Mount/Unmount
> > are not frequent activities, it is better for them to succeed
> > if operating system can allocate memory and take them
> > forward.
> But that's the big if, right?
> If the system is so starved that you can't get this memory to even start
> the mount process, I'm sure it's better to fail the mount with -ENOMEM
> than to add to the current system memory stress.

 Not really. It is going to fail many automated scripts.  We are designing
 for a problem that system  is starved with memory. It points to a bug
 in memory & system dirty state cleaning, they are the ideal problems
 to be solved this instead of this.  As long as system recovers, it is  good
 not to disturb automated scripts by introducing these kind of  unnecessary
 failures of the mount command.

> In general KM_MAYFAIL sounds like a good plan when you can handle the
> failure gracefully, I think.

 Not really. It fails mount gracefully, however, it needs administrative
 It is expected that operating system will recover and functional without
 admin intervention.


> -Eric

[[HTML alternate version deleted]]

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