Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM / Sleep: Freeze filesystems during system suspend/hibernation

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Tue Dec 17 2013 - 20:03:12 EST


On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 08:00:55 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:04:46 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> On Friday, May 25, 2012, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>> >> commit b94887bbc0621e1e8402e7f0ec4bc3adf46c9a6e
> >> >>> >> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> >> >>> >> Date: Fri Feb 17 12:42:08 2012 -0500
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Freeze all filesystems during system suspend and (kernel-driven)
> >> >>> >> hibernation by calling freeze_supers() for all superblocks and thaw
> >> >>> >> them during the subsequent resume with the help of thaw_supers().
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> This makes filesystems stay in a consistent state in case something
> >> >>> >> goes wrong between system suspend (or hibernation) and the subsequent
> >> >>> >> resume (e.g. journal replays won't be necessary in those cases). In
> >> >>> >> particular, this should help to solve a long-standing issue that, in
> >> >>> >> some cases, during resume from hibernation the boot loader causes the
> >> >>> >> journal to be replied for the filesystem containing the kernel image
> >> >>> >> and/or initrd causing it to become inconsistent with the information
> >> >>> >> stored in the hibernation image.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> The user-space-driven hibernation (s2disk) is not covered by this
> >> >>> >> change, because the freezing of filesystems prevents s2disk from
> >> >>> >> accessing device special files it needs to do its job.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> This change is based on earlier work by Nigel Cunningham.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Rebased to 3.3-rc3 by Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Did this patch ever wind up going anywhere? Fedora has it sitting in
> >> >>> our tree with a comment that says "rebase" and I don't see it in the
> >> >>> linux-next tree at all.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Did if fall through the cracks or was it NAKed somewhere?
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it wasn't in principle. There were some comments I haven't addressed yet.
> >> >
> >> > Dredging up a really old thread, sorry.
> >> >
> >> > We're still carrying this patch along in Fedora. Should we drop it at
> >> > this point, or is it still eventually going to head upstream?
> >>
> >> Fixed Rafael's email address. (Double sorry.)
> >
> > No biggie.
> >
> > I just hadn't got sufficient response for that patch at the time it was
> > submitted, so I guess it would be good to resubmit it. Please feel free to
> > do that if you want.
>
> You want me to resend a patch you authored back to you? I mean, I can
> do that but it seems a bit strange. All I did was rebase what you
> wrote to a newer kernel version.

Well, you can send it to me in private then and I'll resubmit. :-)

I just don't have any recent version of it handy.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
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/