[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Freeze bdevs when freezing processes.

To: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Freeze bdevs when freezing processes.
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:57:00 +1000
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1161850709.17293.23.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
References: <1161576735.3466.7.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> <200610251432.41958.rjw@sisk.pl> <1161782620.3638.0.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> <200610252105.56862.rjw@sisk.pl> <20061026073022.GG8394166@melbourne.sgi.com> <1161850709.17293.23.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/
Hi Nigel,

On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:18:29PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 17:30 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > We have daemons running in the background that can definitely do stuff
> > after a sync. hmm - one does try_to_freeze() after a wakeup, the
> > other does:
> > 
> >                 if (unlikely(freezing(current))) {
> >                         set_bit(XBT_FORCE_SLEEP, &target->bt_flags);
> >                         refrigerator();
> >                 } else {
> >                         clear_bit(XBT_FORCE_SLEEP, &target->bt_flags);
> >                 }
> > 
> > before it goes to sleep. So that one (xfsbufd - metadata buffer flushing)
> > can definitely wake up after the sync and do work, and the other could if
> > the kernel thread freeze occurs after the sync.
> > 
> > Another good question at this point - exactly how should we be putting
> > these thread to to sleep? Are both these valid methods for freezing them?
> > And should we be freezing when we wake up instead of before we go to
> > sleep? i.e. what are teh rules we are supposed to be following?
> As you have them at the moment, the threads seem to be freezing fine.
> The issue I've seen in the past related not to threads but to timer
> based activity. Admittedly it was 2.6.14 when I last looked at it, but
> there used to be a possibility for XFS to submit I/O from a timer when
> the threads are frozen but the bdev isn't frozen. Has that changed?

I didn't think we've ever done that - periodic or delayed operations
are passed off to the kernel threads to execute. A stack trace
(if you still have it) would be really help here.

Hmmm - we have a couple of per-cpu work queues as well that are
used on I/O completion and that can, in some circumstances,
trigger new transactions. If we are only flush metadata, then
I don't think that any more I/o will be issued, but I could be
wrong (maze of twisty passages).


Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>