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 -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
