From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:33:56 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080630123356.GO29319@disturbed> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48687F2B.2000402@goop.org>
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:37:31PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:22:47AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Monday, 30 of June 2008, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:09:10PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>>>>> Is this the same thing the per-device IO-queue-freeze patches for
>>>>>>> HDAPS also
>>>>>>> need to do? If so, you may want to talk to Elias Oltmanns
>>>>>>> <eo@nebensachen.de> about it. Added to CC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the heads up Henrique. Even though these issues seem to be
>>>>>> related up to a certain degree, there probably are some important
>>>>>> differences. When suspending a system, the emphasis is on leaving the
>>>>>> system in a consistent state (think of journalled file systems), whereas
>>>>>> disk shock protection is mainly concerned with stopping I/O as soon as
>>>>>> possible. As yet, I cannot possibly say to what extend these two
>>>>>> concepts can be reconciled in the sense of sharing some common code.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I believe requirements are same.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'don't do i/o in dangerous period'.
>>>>>
>>>>> swsusp will just do sync() before entering dangerous period. That
>>>>> provides consistent-enough state...
>>>>>
>>>> As I've said many times before - if the requirement is "don't do
>>>> I/O" then you have to freeze the filesystem. In no way does 'sync'
>>>> prevent filesystems from doing I/O.....
>>>>
>>> Well, it seems we can handle this on the block layer level, by temporarily
>>> replacing the elevator with something that will selectively prevent fs I/O
>>> from reaching the layers below it.
>>
>> Why? What part of freeze_bdev() doesn't work for you?
>
> Well, my original problem - which is still an issue - is that a process
> writing to a frozen XFS filesystem is stuck in D state, and therefore
> cannot be frozen as part of suspend.
Silly me - how could I forget the three headed monkey getting in
the way of our happy trip to beer island?
Seriously, though, how is stopping I/O in the elevator is going to
change that? What do you do with a sync I/O (read or write)? The
process is going to have to go to sleep somewhere in D state waiting
for that I/O to complete. If you're going to intercept such
processes somewhere else to do something magic, then why not put
that magic in vfs_check_frozen()?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-30 12:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-22 3:54 freeze vs freezer Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-11-23 23:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-11-26 18:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-11-26 21:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-11-26 21:17 ` David Chinner
2007-11-26 21:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-11-27 5:38 ` Matthew Garrett
2007-11-27 17:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-11-27 20:33 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-11-27 23:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-11-27 22:49 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-11-27 23:14 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-11-27 23:32 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-01-02 16:02 ` Pavel Machek
2008-01-02 21:30 ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-01-02 22:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-01-03 9:19 ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-01-03 9:47 ` Oliver Neukum
2008-01-03 9:52 ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-01-03 11:15 ` Oliver Neukum
2008-01-03 22:06 ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-01-04 20:54 ` Oliver Neukum
2008-01-05 1:38 ` Kyle Moffett
2008-01-05 21:18 ` Pavel Machek
2008-01-05 23:01 ` Nigel Cunningham
2008-01-03 22:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-06-23 7:16 ` Pavel Machek
2008-06-23 14:00 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2008-06-24 8:08 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-06-26 15:09 ` Pavel Machek
2008-06-29 22:12 ` [xfs-masters] " Dave Chinner
2008-06-29 23:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-06-30 6:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-06-30 20:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-07-03 19:43 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-06-30 6:29 ` Dave Chinner
2008-06-30 6:37 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-06-30 12:33 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2008-06-30 21:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-06-30 22:21 ` Dave Chinner
2008-06-30 22:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-07-01 6:38 ` Dave Chinner
2008-07-01 14:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-07-01 15:05 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-01 15:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-07-01 21:15 ` Dave Chinner
2008-07-01 21:46 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-01 21:12 ` Dave Chinner
2008-07-01 21:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-07-01 8:59 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080630123356.GO29319@disturbed \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dgc@sgi.com \
--cc=eo@nebensachen.de \
--cc=hmh@hmh.eng.br \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=mrmacman_g4@mac.com \
--cc=xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox