Hi Michael,
On Apr 05 2018, Michael Lyle <mlyle@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 01:51 AM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> Is there a way to prevent this from happening? Could eg the kernel
>> detect that the swap devices is (indirectly) on bcache and refuse to
>> hibernate? Or is there a way to do a "true" read-only mount of a
>> bcache volume so that one can safely resume from it?
>
> I think you're correct. If you're using bcache in writeback mode, it is
> not safe to hibernate there, because some of the blocks involved in the
> resume can end up in cache (and dependency issues, like you mention).
Could you explain why this isn't a problem with writethrough? It seems
to me that the trouble happens when the hibernation image is *read*, so
why does it matter what kind of write caching is used?
> I am unaware of a mechanism to prohibit this in the kernel-- to say that
> a given type of block provider can't be involved in a resume operation.
> Most documentation for hibernation explicitly cautions about the btrfs
> situation, but use of bcache is less common and as a result generally
> isn't covered.
Could you maybe add a warning to Documentation/bcache.txt? I think this
would have saved me.
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
