[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] sys_sync livelock fix
In article <> you write:
| Bill Davidsen wrote:
| >
| > > But we want sync to be useful.
| >
| > No one has proposed otherwise. Unless you think that a possible hang is
| > useful, the questions becomes adding all dirty buffers to the elevator,
| > then (a) waiting or (b) returning. Either satisfies SuSv2.
| errr. Bill. I wrote the patch. Please take this as a sign
| that I'm not happy with the current implementation :)

Sorry, I had been sitting at a keyboard for about 16 hours when I typed
that, and didn't look at the sender... Lot's of other typos in there as
well, sign of need for 3-4 hours sleep.

But I think sync(2) as a checkpoint, write out all dirty at the moment
of sync call, is fine and deterministic, and all that.

That serves the shutdown case as well, if there is a process in some
unkillable state, but somehow still writing, at least the system will go
down. I'm not sure any process not killable with kill -9 is able to do
anything, but I won't bet on it.

bill davidsen <>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
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: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.090 / U:8.496 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site