xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer

To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:11:50 -0400
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, Elias Oltmanns <eo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@xxxxxxx>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <200806300122.48204.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <4744FD87.7010301@goop.org> <20080626150910.GK5642@ucw.cz> <20080629221217.GM29319@disturbed> <200806300122.48204.rjw@sisk.pl>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:22:47AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Actually, I believe requirements are same.
> > > 
> > > 'don't do i/o in dangerous period'.
> > > 
> > > swsusp will just do sync() before entering dangerous period. That
> > > provides consistent-enough state...
> > 
> > As I've said many times before - if the requirement is "don't do
> > I/O" then you have to freeze the filesystem. In no way does 'sync'
> > prevent filesystems from doing I/O.....
> 
> Well, it seems we can handle this on the block layer level, by temporarily
> replacing the elevator with something that will selectively prevent fs I/O
> from reaching the layers below it.
> 
> I talked with Jens about it on a very general level, but it seems doable at
> first sight.

Why would you hack the blok layer when we already have a perfectly fine
facility to archive what you want?  freeze_bdev is there exactly for the
purpose to make the filesystem consistant on disk and then freeze all
I/O.


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