From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with SMTP id p2NBZPCX089311 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:35:31 -0500 Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4F2C136D1CA for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 04:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id nBLLE4lQlz5S0koT for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 04:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:38:03 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: xfs: outstanding patches for 2.6.39 Message-ID: <20110323113803.GB26611@dastard> References: <1300860870-15471-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Andi Kleen Cc: aelder@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:01:17AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > Dave Chinner writes: > > > Of course, the major patch in this series is the conversion of the > > buffer cache to using kmalloc and get_free_page() directly rather > > than using the page cache. This has many benefits and I haven't > > found any regressions due to making that change yet. > > One (somewhat obscure) regression will be that you won't be able to > recover from uncorrected memory errors in the buffer cache anymore. We can't do that right now, anyway. > Previously memory_failure() could just drop it transparently when that > happens and the page is currently not used. 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. 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. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs