[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:0.148 / U:3.224 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site