Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753265AbWKLV4g (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:56:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753309AbWKLV4g (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:56:36 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:35529 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753265AbWKLV4g (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:56:36 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:53:56 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Alasdair G Kergon , Eric Sandeen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, Srinivasa DS , Nigel Cunningham , David Chinner References: <20061107183459.GG6993@agk.surrey.redhat.com> <200611101303.33685.rjw@sisk.pl> <20061112184310.GC5081@ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20061112184310.GC5081@ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611122253.57201.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1936 Lines: 60 Hi, On Sunday, 12 November 2006 19:43, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Okay, so you claim that sys_sync can stall, waiting for administator? > > > > > > In such case we can simply do one sys_sync() before we start freezing > > > userspace... or just more the only sys_sync() there. That way, admin > > > has chance to unlock his system. > > > > Well, this is a different story. > > > > My point is that if we call sys_sync() _anyway_ before calling > > freeze_filesystems(), then freeze_filesystems() is _safe_ (either the > > sys_sync() blocks, or it doesn't in which case freeze_filesystems() won't > > block either). > > > > This means, however, that we can leave the patch as is (well, with the minor > > fix I have already posted), for now, because it doesn't make things worse a > > bit, but: > > (a) it prevents xfs from being corrupted and > > I'd really prefer it to be fixed by 'freezeable workqueues'. Can you > point me into sources -- which xfs workqueues are problematic? I think these: http://www.linux-m32r.org/lxr/http/source/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c?a=x86_64#L1829 But then, there's also this one http://www.linux-m32r.org/lxr/http/source/fs/reiserfs/journal.c?a=x86_64#L2837 and some others that I had no time to trace. > (It would be nice to fix that for 2.6.19, and full bdev freezing looks > intrusive to me). IMHO changing __create_workqueue() will be even more intrusive. > > (b) it prevents journaling filesystems in general from replaying journals > > after a failing resume. > > I do not see b) as an useful goal. Okay, let's forget it. Greetings, Rafael -- You never change things by fighting the existing reality. R. Buckminster Fuller - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/