On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:50:29AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>> "James" == James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxx> writes: > > James> Would it be too much work in the fs to mark the page dirty before > James> you begin altering it (and again after you finish, just in case > James> some cleaner noticed and initiated a write)? Or some other flag > James> that indicates page under modification? All the process > James> controlling the writeout (which is pretty high up in the stack) > James> needs to know is if we triggered the check error by altering the > James> page while it was in flight. > > James> I agree that a block based retry would close all the holes ... it > James> just doesn't look elegant to me that the fs will already be > James> repeating the I/O if it changed the page and so will block. > > I experimented with this approach a while back. However, I quickly got > into a situation where frequently updated blocks never made it to disk > because the page was constantly being updated. And all writes failed > with a guard tag error. What if you bounce in the case of a first guard error? -- 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
