Wrong DIF guard tag on ext2 write
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: KVM, Fix QEMU-KVM is killed by guest SRAO MCE (resend)
Next: drivers/watchdog: Eliminate a NULL pointer dereference
From: Matthew Wilcox on 1 Jun 2010 12:30 On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:49:51AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > I agree that a block based retry would close all the holes ... it just > > doesn't look elegant to me that the fs will already be repeating the I/O > > if it changed the page and so will block. > > We might not ever repeat the IO. We might change the page, write it, > change it again, truncate the file and toss the page completely. Why does it matter that it was never written in that case? -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Chris Mason on 1 Jun 2010 12:50 On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:29:30AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:49:51AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > I agree that a block based retry would close all the holes ... it just > > > doesn't look elegant to me that the fs will already be repeating the I/O > > > if it changed the page and so will block. > > > > We might not ever repeat the IO. We might change the page, write it, > > change it again, truncate the file and toss the page completely. > > Why does it matter that it was never written in that case? It matters is the storage layer is going to wait around for the block to be written again with a correct crc. Unless there is trim + DIF, but that's a lot of plates to spin just for a basic implementation. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: James Bottomley on 1 Jun 2010 13:00 On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 12:47 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:29:30AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:49:51AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > I agree that a block based retry would close all the holes ... it just > > > > doesn't look elegant to me that the fs will already be repeating the I/O > > > > if it changed the page and so will block. > > > > > > We might not ever repeat the IO. We might change the page, write it, > > > change it again, truncate the file and toss the page completely. > > > > Why does it matter that it was never written in that case? > > It matters is the storage layer is going to wait around for the block to > be written again with a correct crc. Actually, I wasn't advocating that. I think block should return a guard mismatch error. I think somewhere in filesystem writeout is the place to decide whether the error was self induced or systematic. For self induced errors (as long as we can detect them) I think we can just forget about it ... if the changed page is important, the I/O request gets repeated (modulo the problem of too great a frequency of changes leading to us never successfully writing it) or it gets dropped because the file was truncated or the data deleted for some other reason. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Chris Mason on 1 Jun 2010 14:10 On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 04:54:53PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 12:47 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:29:30AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:49:51AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > > I agree that a block based retry would close all the holes ... it just > > > > > doesn't look elegant to me that the fs will already be repeating the I/O > > > > > if it changed the page and so will block. > > > > > > > > We might not ever repeat the IO. We might change the page, write it, > > > > change it again, truncate the file and toss the page completely. > > > > > > Why does it matter that it was never written in that case? > > > > It matters is the storage layer is going to wait around for the block to > > be written again with a correct crc. > > Actually, I wasn't advocating that. I think block should return a guard > mismatch error. I think somewhere in filesystem writeout is the place > to decide whether the error was self induced or systematic. In that case the io error goes to the async page writeback bio-endio handlers. We don't have a reference on the inode and no ability to reliably restart the IO, but we can set a bit on the address space indicating that somewhere, sometime in the past we had an IO error. > For self > induced errors (as long as we can detect them) I think we can just > forget about it ... if the changed page is important, the I/O request > gets repeated (modulo the problem of too great a frequency of changes > leading to us never successfully writing it) or it gets dropped because > the file was truncated or the data deleted for some other reason. Sorry, how can we tell the errors that are self induced from the evil bit flipping cable induced errors? -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Nick Piggin on 1 Jun 2010 14:50
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:09:05PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 04:54:53PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 12:47 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:29:30AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:49:51AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > > > I agree that a block based retry would close all the holes ... it just > > > > > > doesn't look elegant to me that the fs will already be repeating the I/O > > > > > > if it changed the page and so will block. > > > > > > > > > > We might not ever repeat the IO. We might change the page, write it, > > > > > change it again, truncate the file and toss the page completely. > > > > > > > > Why does it matter that it was never written in that case? > > > > > > It matters is the storage layer is going to wait around for the block to > > > be written again with a correct crc. > > > > Actually, I wasn't advocating that. I think block should return a guard > > mismatch error. I think somewhere in filesystem writeout is the place > > to decide whether the error was self induced or systematic. > > In that case the io error goes to the async page writeback bio-endio > handlers. We don't have a reference on the inode and no ability to > reliably restart the IO, but we can set a bit on the address space > indicating that somewhere, sometime in the past we had an IO error. > > > For self > > induced errors (as long as we can detect them) I think we can just > > forget about it ... if the changed page is important, the I/O request > > gets repeated (modulo the problem of too great a frequency of changes > > leading to us never successfully writing it) or it gets dropped because > > the file was truncated or the data deleted for some other reason. > > Sorry, how can we tell the errors that are self induced from the evil > bit flipping cable induced errors? Block layer should retry it with bounce pages. That would be a lot nicer than forcing all upper layers to avoid the problem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |