[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: David Chinner <dgc sgi com>
- Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm osdl org>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen redhat com>, Nigel Cunningham <nigel suspend2 net>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw sisk pl>, 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: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:39:42 +0100
On Fri 2006-11-10 11:57:49, David Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 11:21:46PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I think we can add a flag to __create_workqueue() that will indicate if
> > this one is to be running with PF_NOFREEZE and a corresponding macro like
> > create_freezable_workqueue() to be used wherever we want the worker thread
> > to freeze (in which case it should be calling try_to_freeze() somewhere).
> > Then, we can teach filesystems to use this macro instead of
> > create_workqueue().
>
> At what point does the workqueue get frozen? i.e. how does this
> guarantee an unfrozen filesystem will end up in a consistent
> state?
Snapshot is atomic; workqueue will be unfrozen with everyone else, but
as there were no writes in the meantime, there should be no problems.
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]