[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200702281159.36079.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:59:35 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: nigel@...el.suspend2.net
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with freezable workqueues
On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 02:14, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 01:08 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:01, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 00:57 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, in that case I'd suggest removing create_freezeable_workqueue() and
> > > > make all workqueues nonfreezable once again for 2.6.21 (as far as I know, only
> > > > the two XFS workqueues are affected).
> > >
> > > I think Nigel might object but I forgot what specific trouble XFS was
> > > causing him.
> >
> > We suspected that the XFS' worker threads might commit I/O after
> > freeze_processes() has returned, but that hasn't been supported by evidence,
> > as far as I can recall.
> >
> > Also, making them freezable was controversial ...
>
> Controversy is no reason to give in! Nevertheless, I think you're right
> - I believe the XFS guys said they fixed the issue that had caused I/O
> to be submitted post-freeze. Well, we'll see if it appears again, won't
> we?
Sure, we will. :-)
Rafael
-
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