Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:27:38 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc:     Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        =?utf-8?B?54Sm5pmT5Yas?= <milestonejxd@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: POSIX violation by writeback error
Message-ID: <20180927142738.GA27040@thunk.org>
Mail-Followup-To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        =?utf-8?B?54Sm5pmT5Yas?= <milestonejxd@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
References: <CAJDTihx2yaR-_-9Ks1PoFcrKNZgUOoLdN-wRTTMV76Jg_dCLrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <486f6105fd4076c1af67dae7fdfe6826019f7ff4.camel@redhat.com>
 <20180925003044.239531c7@alans-desktop>
 <0662a4c5d2e164d651a6a116d06da380f317100f.camel@redhat.com>
 <20180925154627.GC2933@thunk.org>
 <23cd68a665d27216415dc79367ffc3bee1b60b86.camel@redhat.com>
 <20180925223054.GH2933@thunk.org>
 <51b401b82356c2d8e124bb8701f310afd98e0838.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51b401b82356c2d8e124bb8701f310afd98e0838.camel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:43:10AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> 
> Basically, the problem (as I see it) is that we can end up evicting
> uncleanable data from the cache before you have a chance to call fsync,
> and that means that the results of a read after a write are not
> completely reliable.

Part of the problem is that people don't agree on what the problem is.  :-)

The original posting was from someone who claimed it was a "POSIX
violation" if a subsequent read returns *successfully*, but then the
writeback succeeds.

Other people are worried about this problem; yet others are worried
about the system wedging and OOM-killing itself, etc.

The problem is that in the face of I/O errors, it's impossible to keep
everyone happy.  (You could make the local storage device completely
reliable, with a multi-million dollar storage array with remote
replication, but then the CFO won't be happy; and other people were
talking about making things work with cheap USB thumb drives and
laptops.  This is the very definition of an over-constained problem.)

       	      	   	      	    		    - Ted