Re: PATCH reduce impact of FIFREEZE on userland processes

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 11:42:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> The problem wth doing this is that the sync can delay the freeze
> process by quite some time under the exact conditions you describe.
> If you want freeze to take effect immediately (i.e instantly stop
> new modifications), then adding a sync will break this semantic.
> THere are existing users of freeze that require this behaviour...

But that's only because he uses the big hammer sync_filesystem() which
actually waits for I/O completion.  I agree that this is a bad idea,
but if we'd just do a writeback_inodes_sb() call in this place that
starts asynchronous writeout I think everyone would benefit.

--
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/