On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 14:32 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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
> That's why I asked if the dirty XFS metadata were flushed by a kernel thread.
When I first added bdev freezing it was because there was an XFS timer