lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Mis-Design of Btrfs?
Date
Excerpts from Ric Wheeler's message of 2011-07-15 08:58:04 -0400:
> On 07/15/2011 12:34 PM, Chris Mason wrote:

[ triggering IO retries on failed crc or other checks ]

> >
> > But, maybe the whole btrfs model is backwards for a generic layer.
> > Instead of sending down ios and testing when they come back, we could
> > just set a verification function (or stack of them?).
> >
> > For metadata, btrfs compares the crc and a few other fields of the
> > metadata block, so we can easily add a compare function pointer and a
> > void * to pass in.
> >
> > The problem is the crc can take a lot of CPU, so btrfs kicks it off to
> > threading pools so saturate all the cpus on the box. But there's no
> > reason we can't make that available lower down.
> >
> > If we pushed the verification down, the retries could bubble up the
> > stack instead of the other way around.
> >
> > -chris
>
> I do like the idea of having the ability to do the verification and retries down
> the stack where you actually have the most context to figure out what is possible...
>
> Why would you need to bubble back up anything other than an error when all
> retries have failed?

By bubble up I mean that if you have multiple layers capable of doing
retries, the lowest levels would retry first. Basically by the time we
get an -EIO_ALREADY_RETRIED we know there's nothing that lower level can
do to help.

-chris


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-15 15:23    [W:0.094 / U:0.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site