[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200611092218.58970.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:18:57 +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 Thursday, 9 November 2006 22:17, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > I guess XFS should just do all the writes from process context, and
> > > refuse any writing when its threads are frozen... I actually still
> > > believe it is doing the right thing, because you can't really write to
> > > disk from timer.
> >
> > This is from a work queue, so in fact from a process context, but from
> > a process that is running with PF_NOFREEZE.
>
> Why not simply &~ PF_NOFREEZE on that particular process? Filesystems
> are free to use threads/work queues/whatever, but refrigerator should
> mean "no writes to filesystem" for them...
But how we differentiate worker_threads used by filesystems from the
other ones?
BTW, I think that worker_threads run with PF_NOFREEZE for a reason,
but what exactly is it?
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