Hi Miklos. On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 00:45 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 00:24 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > Remember, though, that we're only freezing fuse at the moment, and > > > > strictly one filesystem at a time. We can thus happily wait for the > > > > i_mutex taken by some other process to be released. > > > > > > Not going to work: you need to wait for all requests to be finished, > > > but those might depend on some other fuse filesystem which has already > > > been frozen. > > > > Okay. In that case, am I right in thinking that the request waiting on > > the frozen filesystem will be stuck in request_wait_answer, > > Yes. > > > and the > > userspace process that was trying to satisfy the request will be stuck > > in the FUSE_MIGHT_FREEZE call that was invoked for the frozen > > filesystem? > > No, it already passed that, before the filesystem got frozen. But it > doesn't matter, in either case i_mutex will already have been taken by > the VFS and it won't be released until the request completely > finishes. I think we're making different assumptions. I'm assuming that one of those solutions we already discussed is implemented, such that we don't start freezing a new filesystem until all the requests for the current filesystem are dealt with. Perhaps I should come up with a new version of the patch that implements that. Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
