On Thu 2007-06-28 17:27:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, 27 June 2007 22:49, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > FWIW, I'm on record stating that "sync" is not sufficient to quiesce an XFS > > > filesystem for a suspend/resume to work safely and have argued that the only > > > > Hmm, so XFS writes to disk even when its threads are frozen? > > > > > safe thing to do is freeze the filesystem before suspend and thaw it after > > > resume. This is why I originally asked you to test that with the other problem > > > > Could you add that to the XFS threads if it is really required? They > > do know that they are being frozen for suspend. > > Well, do you remember the workqueues? They are still nonfreezable. Oops, that would explain it :-(. Can we make XFS stop using them? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
