Re: [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer

From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Date: Mon Jun 30 2008 - 02:37:51 EST


Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:22:47AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 30 of June 2008, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:09:10PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Is this the same thing the per-device IO-queue-freeze patches for
HDAPS also
need to do? If so, you may want to talk to Elias Oltmanns
<eo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> about it. Added to CC.
Thanks for the heads up Henrique. Even though these issues seem to be
related up to a certain degree, there probably are some important
differences. When suspending a system, the emphasis is on leaving the
system in a consistent state (think of journalled file systems), whereas
disk shock protection is mainly concerned with stopping I/O as soon as
possible. As yet, I cannot possibly say to what extend these two
concepts can be reconciled in the sense of sharing some common code.
Actually, I believe requirements are same.

'don't do i/o in dangerous period'.

swsusp will just do sync() before entering dangerous period. That
provides consistent-enough state...
As I've said many times before - if the requirement is "don't do
I/O" then you have to freeze the filesystem. In no way does 'sync'
prevent filesystems from doing I/O.....
Well, it seems we can handle this on the block layer level, by temporarily
replacing the elevator with something that will selectively prevent fs I/O
from reaching the layers below it.

Why? What part of freeze_bdev() doesn't work for you?

Well, my original problem - which is still an issue - is that a process writing to a frozen XFS filesystem is stuck in D state, and therefore cannot be frozen as part of suspend.

J

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/