On Wednesday, 8 November 2006 03:30, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 11:49:51PM +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > > I hadn't noticed that -mm patch. I'll take a look. > > swsusp-freeze-filesystems-during-suspend-rev-2.patch > > I think you need to give more thought to device-mapper > interactions here. If an underlying device is suspended > by device-mapper without freezing the filesystem (the > normal state) and you issue a freeze_bdev on a device > above it, the freeze_bdev may never return if it attempts > any synchronous I/O (as it should). Well, it looks like the interactions with dm add quite a bit of complexity here. > Try: > while process generating I/O to filesystem on LVM > issue dmsetup suspend --nolockfs (which the lvm2 tools often do) > try your freeze_filesystems() Okay, I will. > Maybe: don't allow freeze_filesystems() to run when the system is in that > state; I'd like to avoid that (we may be running out of battery power at this point). > or, use device-mapper suspend instead of freeze_bdev directly where > dm is involved; How do I check if dm is involved? > or skip dm devices that are already frozen - all with > appropriate dependency tracking to process devices in the right order. I'd prefer this one, but probably the previous one is simpler to start with. Greetings, Rafael -- You never change things by fighting the existing reality. R. Buckminster Fuller -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
