[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061112184310.GC5081@ucw.cz>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:43:10 +0000
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
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!
> > 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@...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