[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080630061149.GA352@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:11:50 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, xfs-masters@....sgi.com,
Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:22:47AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Actually, I believe requirements are same.
> > >
> > > 'don't do i/o in dangerous period'.
> > >
> > > swsusp will just do sync() before entering dangerous period. That
> > > provides consistent-enough state...
> >
> > As I've said many times before - if the requirement is "don't do
> > I/O" then you have to freeze the filesystem. In no way does 'sync'
> > prevent filesystems from doing I/O.....
>
> Well, it seems we can handle this on the block layer level, by temporarily
> replacing the elevator with something that will selectively prevent fs I/O
> from reaching the layers below it.
>
> I talked with Jens about it on a very general level, but it seems doable at
> first sight.
Why would you hack the blok layer when we already have a perfectly fine
facility to archive what you want? freeze_bdev is there exactly for the
purpose to make the filesystem consistant on disk and then freeze all
I/O.
--
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