On Wed 2008-07-09 09:10:27, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:07:31PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > I still disagree with this whole patch. There is not reason to let
> > > the freeze request timeout - an auto-unfreezing will only confuse the
> > > hell out of the caller. The only reason where the current XFS freeze
> > > call can hang and this would be theoretically useful is when the
> >
> > What happens when someone dirties so much data that vm swaps out
> > whatever process that frozen the filesystem?
>
> a) you can't dirty a frozen filesystem - by definition a frozen
> filesystem is a *clean filesystem* and *cannot be dirtied*.
Can you stop me?
mmap("/some/huge_file", MAP_SHARED);
then write to memory mapping?
> b) Swap doesn't write through the filesystem
> c) you can still read from a frozen filesystem to page your
> executable?? in.
atime modification should mean dirty data, right? And dirty data mean
memory pressure, right?
> d) if dirtying another unfrozen filesystem swaps out your
~~~~~~~
> application so it can't run, then there's a major VM bug.
> Regardless, until the app completes it is relying on the
> filesystem being frozen, so it better remain frozen....
Agreed. With emphasis on "another".
> > I though that was why the timeout was there...
>
> Not that I know of.
Ok, lets see how you deal with mmap.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
