From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k9PCYIaG018084 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:34:20 -0700 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl (ogre.sisk.pl [217.79.144.158]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 54EC64D60C6 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:33:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Freeze bdevs when freezing processes. Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:32:39 +0200 References: <1161576735.3466.7.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> <20061025083830.GI11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <20061025084714.GA7266@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20061025084714.GA7266@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610251432.41958.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Pavel Machek Cc: David Chinner , Nigel Cunningham , Andrew Morton , LKML , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wednesday, 25 October 2006 10:47, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2006-10-25 18:38:30, David Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:10:01AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Hence the only way to correctly rebuild the XFS state on resume is > > > > to quiesce the filesystem on suspend and thaw it on resume so as to > > > > trigger log recovery. > > > > > > No, during suspend/resume, memory image is saved, and no state is > > > lost. We would not even have to do sys_sync(), and suspend/resume > > > would still work properly. > > > > It seems to me that you ensure the filesystem is synced to disk and > > then at some point later you record the memory state of the > > filesystem, but these happen at different times. That leaves a > > window for things to get out of sync again, right? > > I DO NOT HAVE TO ENSURE FILESYSTEM IS SYNCED. That sys_sync() is > optional. > > Recording of memory state is atomic, and as long as noone writes to > the disk after atomic snapshot, memory image matches what is on disk. Well, my impression is that this is exactly what happens here: Something in the XFS code causes metadata to be written to disk _after_ the atomic snapshot. That's why I asked if the dirty XFS metadata were flushed by a kernel thread. Greetings, Rafael -- You never change things by fighting the existing reality. R. Buckminster Fuller