[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: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw sisk pl>
- To: Pavel Machek <pavel ucw cz>
- Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm osdl org>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen redhat com>, Nigel Cunningham <nigel suspend2 net>, David Chinner <dgc sgi com>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, Srinivasa DS <srinivasa in ibm com>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:18:57 +0100
Hi,
On Thursday, 9 November 2006 22:17, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > OTOH I have no idea _how_ we can tell xfs that the processes have been
> > > > frozen. Should we introduce a global flag for that or something?
> > >
> > > I guess XFS should just do all the writes from process context, and
> > > refuse any writing when its threads are frozen... I actually still
> > > believe it is doing the right thing, because you can't really write to
> > > disk from timer.
> >
> > This is from a work queue, so in fact from a process context, but from
> > a process that is running with PF_NOFREEZE.
>
> Why not simply &~ PF_NOFREEZE on that particular process? Filesystems
> are free to use threads/work queues/whatever, but refrigerator should
> mean "no writes to filesystem" for them...
But how we differentiate worker_threads used by filesystems from the
other ones?
BTW, I think that worker_threads run with PF_NOFREEZE for a reason,
but what exactly is it?
Rafael
--
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
R. Buckminster Fuller
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]