Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:43:10 +0000 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |