[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs: outstanding patches for 2.6.39

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs: outstanding patches for 2.6.39
From: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:05:15 +0100
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, aelder@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110323113803.GB26611@dastard>
References: <1300860870-15471-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m24o6u48xu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110323113803.GB26611@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/
> We can't do that right now, anyway.

It seemed to work on XFS when we tested it. Undoutedly after your
patch it won't work anymore.

> If the page is not in use, we don't care about it after this patch
> set is applied - the page is either active in a buffer or it has been
> freed. If it is in use, then we'll shut the filesystem down if we
> detect the memory corruption just like we currently do. Hence I
> don't see any regression here.

I think you're confusing the memory_failure() HWPoison path with some XFS
internal checking. I don't think XFS has any HWPoison checking on its own.

> As it is, there is no way for the filesytem to be notified about
> such failures on active pages in buffers, so in reality we can't
> reliably detect them so there is little point in trying to recover
> from such errors.

Well it works today if the page is in pagecache. memory-failure will
just remove it transparently.

In principle you can check for HWPoison manually yourself, but I'm not sure
that is a good way to do it.

ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.

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