From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: PM / hibernate xfs lock up / xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:33:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20110727103308.GA20805@infradead.org> References: <4E1C70AD.1010101@u-club.de> <201107262228.12099.rjw@sisk.pl> <20110727004543.GE8048@dastard> <201107271135.13297.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201107271135.13297.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Christoph , Dave Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Linux PM mailing list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:35:13AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > The Pavel's objection, if I remember it correctly, was that some > (or the majority of?) filesystems didn't implement the freezing operation, > so they would be more vulnerable to data loss in case of a failing hibernation > after this change. However, that's better than actively causing pain to XFS > users. The objection never made sense and only means he never read the code. freeze_super (or freeze_bdev back then) always does a sync_filesystem before even checking if we have a freeze method, and sync_filesystem is what we iterate over for each superblock in sync().