[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-10 15:55    [W:0.019 / U:19.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site