| To: | Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [linux-lvm] 2.6.22-rc4 XFS fails after hibernate/resume |
| From: | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:27:34 +0200 |
| Cc: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, David Greaves <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Robinson <zxvdr.au@xxxxxxxxx>, LVM general discussion and development <linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-pm <linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LinuxRaid <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20070627204924.GA4777@ucw.cz> |
| References: | <46744065.6060605@dgreaves.com> <20070618145007.GE85884050@sgi.com> <20070627204924.GA4777@ucw.cz> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.9.5 |
On Wednesday, 27 June 2007 22:49, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > FWIW, I'm on record stating that "sync" is not sufficient to quiesce an XFS > > filesystem for a suspend/resume to work safely and have argued that the only > > Hmm, so XFS writes to disk even when its threads are frozen? > > > safe thing to do is freeze the filesystem before suspend and thaw it after > > resume. This is why I originally asked you to test that with the other > > problem > > Could you add that to the XFS threads if it is really required? They > do know that they are being frozen for suspend. Well, do you remember the workqueues? They are still nonfreezable. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 0/6][TAKE5] fallocate system call, Mingming Cao |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | project quotas fstab, IT Fintan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [linux-lvm] 2.6.22-rc4 XFS fails after hibernate/resume, Pavel Machek |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [linux-pm] Re: [linux-lvm] 2.6.22-rc4 XFS fails after hibernate/resume, Pavel Machek |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |