Re: [RFD] FS behavior (I/O failure) in kernel summit

Hans Reiser
2005-06-13T18:09:19Z

If you write a patch to implement 1a and 3a for reiserfs and reiser4 I
will accept them. 2a is too vague for me to support --- I can only
answer the question of whether error conditions are fs independent when
it is regarding specified error conditions. I suspect there are times
when it needs to be fs dependent, but only a comprehensive review could
answer to that.

Thanks for your analysis.

Hans

fs wrote:

>Dear Linus, Andrew Morton, and all FS maintainers,
>
> I've posted email before, but received no response. So I send
>another email in the hope of getting feedback from the community.
> From the HA application developer's perspective, we want a
>robust, stable, fast-error-responsive kernel. But the file system
>seems to be a disappointment.
>
> We want to make things clear:
>
>1) When I/O failure occurs(e.g.: unrecoverable media failure - USB
>unplug), FS should
> a. shutdown the FS right now(XFS does this)
> b. try to make the media serve as long as possible(EXT3 remounts
> read-only, cache is still valid for read)
> c. do not care, just print some kernel debugging info(EXT2 JFS
> ReiserFS)
>
>2) When I/O failure occurs, FS should
> a. give a unified error
> b. give errors according to the FS type
>
>3) the returned errno should be
> a. real cause of failure, e.g. USB unplug returns EIO
> b. cause from FS, e.g. USB unplug made FS remount read-only,
> so open(O_RDONLY) returns ENOENT while open(O_RDWR) returns
> EROFS
> c. errno means nothing, you already get -1, that's enough
>
> Unfortunately, recent kernel FSes give mixed answers to the above
>questions. As an end user/developer, this is really BAD! Also, there's
>no correspondent docs/standard, 'de facto' standard varies for different
>people.
>
> So, we propose 1)a 2)a 3)a as the right behavior. We really hope FS
>maintainers can give us a unified answer on this issue, or AT LEAST
>positive feedback. If possible, have a discussion in the Kernel Summit.
>
>P.S.: DOUBT has released test results for linux, Solaris, WinXP sp2.
> Refer to it, then you can know how we feel as a developer.
>
>
>
>> I'm taking part in the project DOUBT[1], and my sub-project
>>focuses on the consistency and coherency of FS[2].
>> Several days ago, I posted a thread, titled "[RFD] What error
>>should
>>FS return when I/O failure occurs?"[3] The purpose of this RFD, is to
>>see whether the community has agreed on this subject. Unfortunately,
>>NO!
>>
>> From my test results in [2], we can see different FS returns
>>different error, or even no error. The community has several points,
>>A) some results are caused by bugs, some are correct, some are
>> implementation compromise. errno is passed to VFS from lower layer,
>> no need to supply unified error type. User applications should
>> handle every error type or glibc can convert the types to specified
>> error type.
>>B) the kernel should give unified error(i.e. errno should be the same
>> for each FS, and give the correct meaning). User applicatons should
>> handle specified error type/types.
>>C) the errno that user gets can't provide enough info, so, there's no
>> need to tell. User application gets -1 from I/O syscalls, that's
>> enough, don't use errno. If user really have special needs, the
>> kernel should use special mechanism to achieve the goal, e.g. add
>> new functions to device drivers.
>>D) ...
>>
>> From the user's perspective, B) seems to be the best, especially
>>for HA purpose. But till now, we can't find any standards or
>>constraints, so each FS implementaion uses 'de facto' way to return
>>errno. This makes users confused.
>> So, would you please have a discussion about this issue in Kernel
>>Summit (June 11-18)? If yes, we users are really thankful for this
>>discussion,so we can know how linux is designed for I/O error handling
>>about FS; if not, that means errno is FS implementation dependent, we
>>have to test our app for each FS. :(
>>
>>P.S.: During the presentation of Kenichi Okuyama in Paris, Windows
>>seems to detect every I/O failure immediately, even for async writes.
>>This shows how proprietary software handles I/O failure.
>>
>>[1] http://developer.osdl.jp/projects/doubt/
>>[2]
>>http://developer.osdl.jp/projects/doubt/fs-consistency-and-coherency/index.html
>>[3] http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0505.2/0006.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>regards,
>----
>Qu Fuping
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
>