[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070301012554.8426b5cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 01:25:54 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
vatsa@...ibm.com, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...uxmail.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make XFS workqueues nonfreezable
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:15:21 +0100 Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> > > - xfslogd_workqueue = create_freezeable_workqueue("xfslogd");
> > > + xfslogd_workqueue = create_workqueue("xfslogd");
> > > if (!xfslogd_workqueue)
> > > goto out_free_buf_zone;
> > >
> > > - xfsdatad_workqueue = create_freezeable_workqueue("xfsdatad");
> > > + xfsdatad_workqueue = create_workqueue("xfsdatad");
> > > if (!xfsdatad_workqueue)
> > > goto out_destroy_xfslogd_workqueue;
> > >
> >
> > Won't this break suspend+XFS?
> >
> > If so, and given that nobody seems to be reporting this deadlock, perhaps
> > we'd be better off leaving things as-is for the while?
>
> Worst case is not breaking suspend+XFS, worst case is XFS writing to
> disk after freeze(), leading to subtle fs corruption.
>
> (But noone could reproduce corruption before, and I was told XFS will
> not do those writes these days).
hm, OK. To avoid making a decision I sent the patch to David ;)
-
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