[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061116234053.GC6757@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:40:53 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: David Chinner <dgc@....com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
On Fri 2006-11-17 10:23:49, David Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:43:05PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, 12 November 2006 23:30, David Chinner wrote:
> > > And how does freezing them at that point in time guarantee consistent
> > > filesystem state?
> >
> > If the work queues are frozen, there won't be any fs-related activity _after_
> > we create the suspend image.
>
> fs-related activity before or after the suspend image is captured is
> not a problem - it's fs-related activity _during_ the suspend that
> is an issue here. If we have async I/O completing during the suspend
> image capture, we've got problems....
fs-related activity _after_ image is captured definitely is a problem
-- it breaks swsusp invariants.
During image capture, any fs-related activity is not possible, as we
are running interrupts disabled, DMA disabled.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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