On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 03:49:16PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > As a result, if the dirty cache includes user data, the data is lost, > > and data corruption occurs if an application uses old data. > > The application cannot use old data, the kernel code kills it if it > would do that. And if it's IO data there is an EIO triggered. > > iirc the only concern in the past was that the application may miss > the asynchronous EIO because it's cleared on any fd access. > > This is a general problem not specific to memory error handling, > as these asynchronous IO errors can happen due to other reason > (bad disk etc.) > > If you're really concerned about this case I think the solution > is to make the EIO more sticky so that there is a higher chance > than it gets returned. This will make your data much more safe, > as it will cover all kinds of IO errors, not just the obscure memory > errors. I'm interested in this topic, and in previous discussion, what I was said is that we can't expect user applications to change their behaviors when they get EIO, so globally changing EIO's stickiness is not a great approach. I'm working on a new pagecache tag based mechanism to solve this. But it needs time and more discussions. So I guess Tanino-san suggests giving up on dirty pagecache errors as a quick solution. Thanks, Naoya -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>