xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: PM / hibernate xfs lock up / xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag

To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PM / hibernate xfs lock up / xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:33:08 -0400
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph <cr2005@xxxxxxxxx>, Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nigel Cunningham <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <201107271135.13297.rjw@xxxxxxx>
References: <4E1C70AD.1010101@xxxxxxxxx> <201107262228.12099.rjw@xxxxxxx> <20110727004543.GE8048@dastard> <201107271135.13297.rjw@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:35:13AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The Pavel's objection, if I remember it correctly, was that some
> (or the majority of?) filesystems didn't implement the freezing operation,
> so they would be more vulnerable to data loss in case of a failing hibernation
> after this change.  However, that's better than actively causing pain to XFS
> users.

The objection never made sense and only means he never read the code.
freeze_super (or freeze_bdev back then) always does a sync_filesystem
before even checking if we have a freeze method, and sync_filesystem is
what we iterate over for each superblock in sync().

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