[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: Pavel Machek <pavel ucw cz>
- To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw sisk pl>
- 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 22:41:59 +0100
Hi!
> > > 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?
I'd expect filesystems to do &~ PF_NOFREEZE by hand.
> BTW, I think that worker_threads run with PF_NOFREEZE for a reason,
> but what exactly is it?
I do not think we had particulary good reasons...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]