Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:07:29 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans |
| |
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 02:24:55PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2009-01-07 03:57:25, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > sys_sync B which is invoked *after* sys_sync caller A should not > > > return before A. If you didn't have a global lock, they'd tend to > > > block one another's pages anyway. I think it's OK. > > > > It means that you cannot reboot because reboot does sync. > > What happens when the sync gets stuck somewhere on a really > > slow device? > > And what do you propose? Silently corrupt data on the slow device?
Yes not writing is better than being unable to reboot.
There should be always a timeout at least for the reboot case.
Consider it from a uptime perspective: if something is really screwed up (and that happens sometimes; classical example was the IO stack getting hung up forever in error handling loops) the only way to get running again is to reboot and try again.
-Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com
| |