Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966711AbWKTW7a (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:59:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S966877AbWKTW7a (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:59:30 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:27079 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966711AbWKTW73 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:59:29 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: nigelc@bur.st Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/2] Use freezeable workqueues to avoid suspend-related XFS corruptions Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:55:49 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: David Chinner , Andrew Morton , LKML , Pavel Machek References: <200611160912.51226.rjw@sisk.pl> <1164061586.15714.1.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> <1164062390.15714.5.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> In-Reply-To: <1164062390.15714.5.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611202355.50487.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1417 Lines: 37 On Monday, 20 November 2006 23:39, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > (Sorry to reply again) (No big deal) > 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. Okay, so let's implement 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/