[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1164062390.15714.5.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:39:50 +1100
From: Nigel Cunningham <nigelc@....st>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/2] Use freezeable workqueues to avoid
suspend-related XFS corruptions
(Sorry to reply again)
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 09:26 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 23:18 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I think I/O can only be submitted from the process context. Thus if we freeze
> > all (and I mean _all_) threads that are used by filesystems, including worker
> > threads, we should effectively prevent fs-related I/O from being submitted
> > after tasks have been frozen.
>
> I know that will work. It's what I used to do before the switch to bdev
> freezing. I guess I need to look again at why I made the switch. Perhaps
> it was just because you guys gave freezing kthreads a bad wrap as too
> invasive or something. Bdev freezing is certainly fewer lines of code.
No, it looks like I wrongly believed that XFS was submitting I/O off a
timer, so that freezing kthreads wasn't enough. In that case, it looks
like freezing kthreads should be a good solution.
Regards,
Nigel
-
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