Re: [PATCH] [16/19] HWPOISON: Enable .remove_error_page for migration aware file systems

[Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 06:52:14PM +0900, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> >>Generally, dropping unwritten dirty page caches is considered to be
> >>risky.  So the "panic on IO error" policy has been used as usual
> >>practice for some systems.  I just suggested that we adopted
> >>this policy into machine check errors. 
> > 
> > Hmm, what we could possibly do -- as followon patches -- would be to
> > let error_remove_page check the per file system panic-on-io-error
> > super block setting for dirty pages and panic in this case too.  
> > Unfortunately this setting is currently per file system, not generic,
> > so it would need to be a fs specific check (or the flag would need
> > to be moved into a generic fs superblock field first)
> 
> A generic setting would be better, so I suggested
> panic_on_dirty_page_cache_corruption flag which would be checked
> before invoking error_remove_page().  If we check per-filesystem
> settings, we might want to notify EIO to the filesystem.

You mean remounting ro if that is set?
That makes sense, but I'm not sure how complicated it would be.
I still would prefer to unify it with the file system settings.

> > The problem is memory_failure() would then need to start distingushing
> > between AR=1 and AR=0 which it doesn't today.
> > 
> > It could be done, but would need some more work. 
> 
> It's my understanding that memory_failure() are never called in
> AR=1 case.  Is it wrong?

Today yes, but we don't want to hardcode that assumption. e.g. for IA64
they will definitely need the equivalent of AR=1 handling.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>