From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m76KLiew017598 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:21:44 -0700 Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D3EEA36736D for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Vp9D30rlruD0RTgm for ; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 06:22:56 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: TAKE 981498 - use KM_MAYFAIL in xfs_mountfs Message-ID: <20080806202256.GR21635@disturbed> References: <20080806054121.CB2F258C52A4@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <489A01B0.5050606@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <489A01B0.5050606@sandeen.net> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Bhagi rathi , Lachlan McIlroy , sgi.bugs.xfs@engr.sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com 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@fromorbit.com