From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] fs: introduce new writeback error tracking infrastructure and convert ext4 to use it Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 14:08:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1491329334.309.6.camel@redhat.com> References: <1491215318.2724.3.camel@redhat.com> <20170403143257.GA30811@bombadil.infradead.org> <1491241657.2673.10.camel@redhat.com> <20170403191602.GF30811@bombadil.infradead.org> <1491250577.2673.20.camel@redhat.com> <87h924kh6t.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20170404115358.GH30811@bombadil.infradead.org> <1491308268.20445.4.camel@redhat.com> <20170404161247.GJ30811@bombadil.infradead.org> <1491323146.309.1.camel@redhat.com> <20170404170909.GK30811@bombadil.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NeilBrown , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, tytso@mit.edu, jack@suse.cz To: Matthew Wilcox Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170404170909.GK30811@bombadil.infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 10:09 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:25:46PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > That said, I think giving more specific errors where we can is useful. > > When your program is erroring out and writing 'I/O error' to the logs, > > then how much time will your admins burn before they figure out that it > > really failed because the filesystem was full? > > df is one of the first things I check ... a few years ago, I also learned > to check df -i ... ;-) > > Anyway, given the decision to simply report the last error lets us do this > implementation: > > void filemap_set_wb_error(struct address_space *mapping, int err) > { > struct inode *inode = mapping->host; > unsigned int wb_err; > > if (!err) > return; > /* > * This should be called with the error code that we want to return > * on fsync. Thus, it should always be <= 0. > */ > WARN_ON(err > 0 || err < -MAX_ERRNO); > > spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > wb_err = ((mapping->wb_err & ~MAX_ERRNO) + (1 << 12)) | -err; > WRITE_ONCE(mapping->wb_err, wb_err); Do we need the WRITE_ONCE, given that you're under a spinlock there? > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > } > > int filemap_report_wb_error(struct file *file) > { > struct inode *inode = file_inode(file); > unsigned int wb_err = READ_ONCE(mapping->wb_err); > > if (file->f_wb_err == wb_err) > return 0; > return -(wb_err & 4095); > } > > That only gives us 20 bits of counter, but I think that's enough. That'd be fine with me, but I'm all for allowing filesystems to return arbitrary writeback errors on fsync. Others may have different opinions there. We could add a wrapper function that sanitizes the error codes if some filesystems wanted that though. -- Jeff Layton