[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
    On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:39:42AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > 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.

    That doesn't answer my question - when in the sequence of freezing
    do you propose diasbling the workqueues? before the kernel threads,
    after the kernel threads, before you sync the filesystem? And how does
    freezing them at that point in time guarantee consistent filesystem state?


    Dave Chinner
    Principal Engineer
    SGI Australian Software Group
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-12 23:35    [W:0.021 / U:8.592 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site