On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:45:14 +0100 Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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, what isn't a good solution to what? > because I think it's much > less likely for writepage to return -EIO directly. Usually they > would come back via data IO completion asynchronously. umm, maybe. If all the file metadata is in pagecache. Often it is not. > 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
