Hi Naoya, On 04/11/2013 11:23 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > 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. The user applications will get EIO firstly or get SIG_KILL firstly? > 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> -- 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>