Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:39:42 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex |
| |
On Fri 2006-11-10 11:57:49, David Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 11:21:46PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > I think we can add a flag to __create_workqueue() that will indicate if > > this one is to be running with PF_NOFREEZE and a corresponding macro like > > create_freezable_workqueue() to be used wherever we want the worker thread > > to freeze (in which case it should be calling try_to_freeze() somewhere). > > Then, we can teach filesystems to use this macro instead of > > create_workqueue(). > > At what point does the workqueue get frozen? i.e. how does this > guarantee an unfrozen filesystem will end up in a consistent > state?
Snapshot is atomic; workqueue will be unfrozen with everyone else, but as there were no writes in the meantime, there should be no problems.
Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |