On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 02:23:47PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > obtw, > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:42:09 +0100 > Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > For simplicity, I have removed the "don't wait for writeout if we hit -EIO" > > logic from a couple of places. I don't know if this is really worth the added > > complexity (EIO will still get reported, but it will just take a bit longer; > > an app can't rely in specific behaviour or timeliness here). > > This is ungood. The device layer likes to twiddle thumbs for 30 > seconds or more when it hits an IO error. We went and made that 30,000 > or more.. It isn't really a good solution anyway, because I think it's much less likely for writepage to return -EIO directly. Usually they would come back via data IO completion asynchronously. And if we are fsyncing so many requests anyway, we are likely going to start blocking behind them in the submission path anyway (elevator queues fill up). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
