Re: [patch] fs: improved handling of page and buffer IO errors

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:16:24PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:

Nick Piggin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

IO error handling in the core mm/fs still doesn't seem perfect, but with
the recent round of patches and this one, it should be getting on the
right track.

I kind of get the feeling some people would rather forget about all this
and brush it under the carpet. Hopefully I'm mistaken, but if anybody
disagrees with my assertion that error handling, and data integrity
semantics are first-class correctness issues, and therefore are more
important than all other non-correctness problems... speak now and let's
discuss that, please.

Otherwise, unless anybody sees obvious problems with this, hopefully it
can go into -mm for some wider testing (I've tested it with a few filesystems
so far and no immediate problems)

I think the first step to get these more robust in the future would be to
have a standard regression test testing these paths.  Otherwise it'll
bit-rot sooner or later again.

The problem I've had with testing is that it's hard to trigger a specific
path for a given error, because write IO especially can be quite non
deterministic, and the filesystem or kernel may give up at various points.

I agree, but I just don't know exactly how they can be turned into
standard tests. Some filesystems like XFS seem to completely shut down
quite easily on IO errors. Others like ext2 can't really unwind from
a failure in a multi-block operation (eg. allocating a block to an
inode) if an error is detected, and it just gets ignored.

I am testing, but mainly just random failure injections and seeing if
things go bug or go undetected etc.


--
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>