lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
    Hi!

    > > Okay, so you claim that sys_sync can stall, waiting for administator?
    > >
    > > In such case we can simply do one sys_sync() before we start freezing
    > > userspace... or just more the only sys_sync() there. That way, admin
    > > has chance to unlock his system.
    >
    > Well, this is a different story.
    >
    > My point is that if we call sys_sync() _anyway_ before calling
    > freeze_filesystems(), then freeze_filesystems() is _safe_ (either the
    > sys_sync() blocks, or it doesn't in which case freeze_filesystems() won't
    > block either).
    >
    > This means, however, that we can leave the patch as is (well, with the minor
    > fix I have already posted), for now, because it doesn't make things worse a
    > bit, but:
    > (a) it prevents xfs from being corrupted and

    I'd really prefer it to be fixed by 'freezeable workqueues'. Can you
    point me into sources -- which xfs workqueues are problematic?

    (It would be nice to fix that for 2.6.19, and full bdev freezing looks
    intrusive to me).

    > (b) it prevents journaling filesystems in general from replaying journals
    > after a failing resume.

    I do not see b) as an useful goal.
    Pavel

    --
    Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
    -
    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: 2006-11-12 19:47    [W:3.117 / U:0.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site