[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200611091652.34649.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:52:33 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@...ibm.com>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...pend2.net>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
Hi,
On Wednesday, 8 November 2006 19:09, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > swsusp-freeze-filesystems-during-suspend-rev-2.patch
> > >
> > > I think you need to give more thought to device-mapper
> > > interactions here. If an underlying device is suspended
> > > by device-mapper without freezing the filesystem (the
> > > normal state) and you issue a freeze_bdev on a device
> > > above it, the freeze_bdev may never return if it attempts
> > > any synchronous I/O (as it should).
> >
> > Well, it looks like the interactions with dm add quite a bit of
> > complexity here.
>
> What about just fixing xfs (thou shall not write to disk when kernel
> threads are frozen), and getting rid of blockdev freezing?
Well, first I must admit you were absolutely right being suspicious with
respect to this stuff.
OTOH I have no idea _how_ we can tell xfs that the processes have been
frozen. Should we introduce a global flag for that or something?
Rafael
--
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
R. Buckminster Fuller
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists