xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM / Freezer: Freeze filesystems along with freezing pr

To: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM / Freezer: Freeze filesystems along with freezing processes (was: Re: PM / hibernate xfs lock up / xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag)
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 11:27:30 +0200
Cc: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph <cr2005@xxxxxxxxx>, Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20110803172922.GA2126@xxxxxx>
References: <4E1C70AD.1010101@xxxxxxxxx> <201108032315.06012.rjw@xxxxxxx> <20110803172922.GA2126@xxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; )
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > Freeze all filesystems during the freezing of tasks by calling
> > freeze_bdev() for each of them and thaw them during the thawing
> > of tasks with the help of thaw_bdev().
> > 
> > This is needed by hibernation, because some filesystems (e.g. XFS)
> > deadlock with the preallocation of memory used by it if the memory
> > pressure caused by it is too heavy.
> > 
> > The additional benefit of this change is that, if something goes
> > wrong after filesystems have been frozen, they will stay in a
> > consistent state and journal replays won't be necessary (e.g. after
> > a failing suspend or resume).  In particular, this should help to
> > solve a long-standing issue that in some cases during resume from
> > hibernation the boot loader causes the journal to be replied for the
> > filesystem containing the kernel image and initrd causing it to
> > become inconsistent with the information stored in the hibernation
> > image.
> 
> > +/**
> > + * freeze_filesystems - Force all filesystems into a consistent state.
> > + */
> > +void freeze_filesystems(void)
> > +{
> > +   struct super_block *sb;
> > +
> > +   lockdep_off();
> 
> Ouch. So... why do we need to silence this?

So that it doesn't complain? :-)

I'll need some time to get the exact details here.

> > +   /*
> > +    * Freeze in reverse order so filesystems dependant upon others are
> > +    * frozen in the right order (eg. loopback on ext3).
> > +    */
> > +   list_for_each_entry_reverse(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
> > +           if (!sb->s_root || !sb->s_bdev ||
> > +               (sb->s_frozen == SB_FREEZE_TRANS) ||
> > +               (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY) ||
> > +               (sb->s_flags & MS_FROZEN))
> > +                   continue;
> 
> Should we stop NFS from modifying remote server, too?

What do you mean exactly?

> Plus... ext3 writes to read-only filesystems on mount; not sure if it
> does it later. But RDONLY means 'user cant write to it' not 'bdev will
> not be modified'. Should we freeze all?
> 
> How can 'already frozen' happen?
> 
> > +   list_for_each_entry(sb, &super_blocks, s_list)
> > +           if (sb->s_flags & MS_FROZEN) {
> > +                   sb->s_flags &= ~MS_FROZEN;
> > +                   thaw_bdev(sb->s_bdev, sb);
> > +           }
> 
> ...because we'll unfreeze it even if we did not freeze it...

So we need not check MS_FROZEN in freeze_filesystems().  OK

Thanks,
Rafael

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