[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
- From: David Chinner <dgc sgi com>
- To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw sisk pl>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen redhat com>, Andrew Morton <akpm osdl org>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, Ingo Molnar <mingo elte hu>, Srinivasa DS <srinivasa in ibm com>
- Cc:
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:27:22 +1100
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:01:09AM +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:42:02AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 8 November 2006 00:18, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > But, how is a stampede of fs-freezers -supposed- to work? I could
> > > imagine something like a freezer count, and the filesystem is only
> > > unfrozen after everyone has thawed? Or should only one freezer be
> > > active at a time... which is what we have now I guess.
> > I think it shouldn't be possible to freeze an fs more than once.
>
> In device-mapper today, the only way to get more than one freeze on the
> same device is to use xfs and issue xfs_freeze before creating an lvm snapshot
> (or issuing the dmsetup equivalent), and at the moment we tell people not to do
> that any more.
But it's trivial to detect this condition - if (sb->s_frozen != SB_UNFROZEN)
then the filesystem is already frozen and you shouldn't try to freeze
it again. It's simple to do, and the whole problem then just goes away....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]