On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:38:54 -0400
Mark Lord <lkml@xxxxxx> wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:11:58 -0400Yeah, I really don't know what to do with this either.
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/07/2007 11:41 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:I can't think of anything in there at present which would cause that toShouldn't sync should wait for truncate to finish?mount /var/lib/mythtv -oremount,roDid this succeed? If the application is still truncating that file, the
sync
umount /var/lib/mythtv
umount should have failed.
happen, and it's not immediately obvious how we _could_ make it happen - we
have an inode which potentially has no dirty pages and which is itself
clean. The truncate can span multiple journal commits, so forcing a
journal commit in sync() won't necessarily block behind the truncate.
I guess we could ask sync to speculatively take and release every inode's
i_mutex or something. But even that would involve quite some hoop-jumping
due to those infuriating spinlock-protected list_heads on the superblock.
hmm.
We have to have a bounds on how long we wait at shutdown,
but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to get notified
once a filesystem becomes idle (?).
I suppose I could have the script loop on /proc/interrupts until
it sees the disk activity has tapered off..
I don't recall clarity on this question: did the umount fail?
Because it should have, in which case your script can poll that.