lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
Date
Hi,

On Thursday, 9 November 2006 17:00, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > Well, it looks like the interactions with dm add quite a bit of
> > > > complexity here.
> > >
> > > What about just fixing xfs (thou shall not write to disk when kernel
> > > threads are frozen), and getting rid of blockdev freezing?
> >
> > Well, first I must admit you were absolutely right being suspicious with
> > respect to this stuff.
>
> (OTOH your patch found real bugs in suspend.c, so...)
>
> > OTOH I have no idea _how_ we can tell xfs that the processes have been
> > frozen. Should we introduce a global flag for that or something?
>
> I guess XFS should just do all the writes from process context, and
> refuse any writing when its threads are frozen... I actually still
> believe it is doing the right thing, because you can't really write to
> disk from timer.

This is from a work queue, so in fact from a process context, but from
a process that is running with PF_NOFREEZE.

And I don't think we can forbid filesystems to use work queues. IMO it's
a legitimate thing to do for an fs.

_But_.

Alasdair, do I think correctly that if there's a suspended device-mapper
device below an non-frozen filesystem, then sys_sync() would block just
as well as freeze_bdev() on this filesystem?

Rafael


--
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
R. Buckminster Fuller
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-09 21:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans