Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 09:15 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:19:51AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Yes, so just to be clear here if you bump a 32 bit counter every > > microsecond you'll end up wrapping in a little over an hour. How fast > > can DAX generate I/O errors? :)

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 09:15 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:19:51AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Yes, so just to be clear here if you bump a 32 bit counter every > > microsecond you'll end up wrapping in a little over an hour. How fast > > can DAX generate I/O errors? :)

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:19:51AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Yes, so just to be clear here if you bump a 32 bit counter every > microsecond you'll end up wrapping in a little over an hour. How fast > can DAX generate I/O errors? :) I admit to not having picked through the code, but how often do

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:19:51AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Yes, so just to be clear here if you bump a 32 bit counter every > microsecond you'll end up wrapping in a little over an hour. How fast > can DAX generate I/O errors? :) I admit to not having picked through the code, but how often do

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 07:47 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 03:26:00PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > This set adds a wb_error field and a sequence counter to the > > address_space, and a corresponding sequence counter in the struct file. > > When errors are reported during

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 07:47 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 03:26:00PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > This set adds a wb_error field and a sequence counter to the > > address_space, and a corresponding sequence counter in the struct file. > > When errors are reported during

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 03:26:00PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > This set adds a wb_error field and a sequence counter to the > address_space, and a corresponding sequence counter in the struct file. > When errors are reported during writeback, we set the error field in the > mapping and increment

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 03:26:00PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > This set adds a wb_error field and a sequence counter to the > address_space, and a corresponding sequence counter in the struct file. > When errors are reported during writeback, we set the error field in the > mapping and increment

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 10:12 +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > On 31.03.2017 22:26, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Most filesystems currently use mapping_set_error and > > filemap_check_errors for setting and reporting/clearing writeback errors > > at the mapping level. filemap_check_errors is indirectly

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 10:12 +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > On 31.03.2017 22:26, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Most filesystems currently use mapping_set_error and > > filemap_check_errors for setting and reporting/clearing writeback errors > > at the mapping level. filemap_check_errors is indirectly

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Nikolay Borisov
On 31.03.2017 22:26, Jeff Layton wrote: > Most filesystems currently use mapping_set_error and > filemap_check_errors for setting and reporting/clearing writeback errors > at the mapping level. filemap_check_errors is indirectly called from > most of the filemap_fdatawait_* functions and from >

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-04-03 Thread Nikolay Borisov
On 31.03.2017 22:26, Jeff Layton wrote: > Most filesystems currently use mapping_set_error and > filemap_check_errors for setting and reporting/clearing writeback errors > at the mapping level. filemap_check_errors is indirectly called from > most of the filemap_fdatawait_* functions and from >

[RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-03-31 Thread Jeff Layton
Most filesystems currently use mapping_set_error and filemap_check_errors for setting and reporting/clearing writeback errors at the mapping level. filemap_check_errors is indirectly called from most of the filemap_fdatawait_* functions and from filemap_write_and_wait*. These functions are called

[RFC PATCH 1/4] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

2017-03-31 Thread Jeff Layton
Most filesystems currently use mapping_set_error and filemap_check_errors for setting and reporting/clearing writeback errors at the mapping level. filemap_check_errors is indirectly called from most of the filemap_fdatawait_* functions and from filemap_write_and_wait*. These functions are called