| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCHv4 08/11] xfs: Use *_dec_not_zero instead of *_add_unless, Sven Eckelmann |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: PM / hibernate xfs lock up / xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag, Nigel Cunningham |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: PM / hibernate xfs lock up / xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag, Rafael J. Wysocki |
| Next by Thread: | Re: PM / hibernate xfs lock up / xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag, Nigel Cunningham |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |