[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061109232438.GS30653@agk.surrey.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 23:24:38 +0000
From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
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
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:11:46AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> ? Not sure if I quite understand, but if dm breaks sync... something
> is teribly wrong with dm. And we do simple sys_sync()... so I do not
> think we have a problem.
If you want to handle arbitrary kernel state, you might have a device-mapper
device somewhere lower down the stack of devices that is queueing any I/O
that reaches it. So anything waiting for I/O completion will wait until
the dm process that suspended that device has finished whatever it is doing
- and that might be a quick thing carried out by a userspace lvm tool, or
a long thing carried out by an administrator using dmsetup.
I'm guessing you need a way of detecting such state lower down the stack
then optionally either aborting the operation telling the user it can't be
done at present; waiting for however long it takes (perhaps for ever if
the admin disappeared); or more probably skipping those devices on a
'best endeavours' basis.
I'm suggesting sysfs or something built on bd_claim might offer a mechanism
for traversing the stack.
Alasdair
--
agk@...hat.com
-
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