Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[xfs\-masters\]\s+Re\:\s+freeze\s+vs\s+freezer\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[xfs\-masters\]\s+Re\:\s+freeze\s+vs\s+freezer\s*$/: 77 ]

Total 77 documents matching your query.

1. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:59:26 +0200; Well, if it is in D state but does not hold any important locks, you can just add "try_to_freeze()" in the place where it is sleeping, right? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmache; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-07/msg00000.html (12,051 bytes)
2. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:35:43 +0200; I don't want to intercept those processes, just allow them to block on that I/O. OK Do all of the filesystems implement the freezing? Rafael; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-07/msg00001.html (13,394 bytes)
3. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Elias Oltmanns <eo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:05:29 +0200; [...] There is some work in progress [1]. If you think this will help you to address this issue on the fs level, where I think it should be done, you may even be able to request some changes to fit y; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-07/msg00002.html (11,484 bytes)
4. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:17:50 -0400; That is just a direct user interface to this functionality. The functionality has been around for a long time.; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-07/msg00003.html (9,886 bytes)
5. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:12:26 +1000; So you're going to allow them to go to D state somewhere. Ok, so what's the problem with blocking them in vfs_check_frozen(), then? Most of the major ones - those that implement ->write_super_lockfs(; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-07/msg00004.html (13,607 bytes)
6. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:15:50 +1000; [....] No, that's the userspace ioctl interface to enable freezing from something other than dm-snapshot. The filesystems that is aimed at already support freezing via freeze_bdev(). Cheers, Dave. --; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-07/msg00005.html (10,797 bytes)
7. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:21:58 +0200; Okay, so we can do that. I'm surely not against freezing of the filesystems before hibernation at least. In fact we tried that in the past, but there were some locking problems I was unable to resolv; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-07/msg00006.html (13,459 bytes)
8. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Elias Oltmanns <eo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:46:34 +0200; Yes, Christoph mentioned that too and I should have realised it had I looked at those patches properly. Regards, Elias; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-07/msg00007.html (9,963 bytes)
9. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:43:00 -0500; Hm, details or a link? ext3, ext4, gfs2, jfs, reiserfs, xfs, all provide a write_super_lockfs op, which is what freeze_bdev uses. I think that the rest is generic, for simpler filesystems. -Eric; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-07/msg00009.html (10,167 bytes)
10. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:16:01 +0200; (replying to *very* old mail). Patch would be welcome, actually. It turns out blocking new IO-requests is not completely trivial. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, p; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00028.html (10,829 bytes)
11. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:00:12 -0300; Is this the same thing the per-device IO-queue-freeze patches for HDAPS also need to do? If so, you may want to talk to Elias Oltmanns <eo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> about it. Added to CC. -- "One disk to rule; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00030.html (11,465 bytes)
12. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Elias Oltmanns <eo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:08:17 +0200; Quite. But I'm not sure I see what this is all about yet. From the IDE and SCSI subsystems I remember that they block all I/O from higher levels once the suspend callbacks have been executed. I haven; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00031.html (12,796 bytes)
13. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:09:10 +0200; s2ram also uses freezer these days. Difference is s2ram does not really need it. I'd like block layer to block any process that tries to do I/O. Actually, I believe requirements are same. 'don't do; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00046.html (12,427 bytes)
14. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:12:17 +1000; 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..... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinn; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00055.html (12,887 bytes)
15. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:22:47 +0200; 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; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00056.html (11,751 bytes)
16. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:11:50 -0400; 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 t; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00057.html (11,288 bytes)
17. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:29:56 +1000; Why? What part of freeze_bdev() doesn't work for you? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00058.html (12,943 bytes)
18. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:37:31 -0700; Well, my original problem - which is still an issue - is that a process writing to a frozen XFS filesystem is stuck in D state, and therefore cannot be frozen as part of suspend. J; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00059.html (12,425 bytes)
19. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:33:56 +1000; Silly me - how could I forget the three headed monkey getting in the way of our happy trip to beer island? Seriously, though, how is stopping I/O in the elevator is going to change that? What do you; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00060.html (14,237 bytes)
20. [xfs-masters] Re: freeze vs freezer (score: 1): Author: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:34:22 +0200; We tried that in the past and it didn't work very well due to some bad interactions with the md layer that we wanted to stay functional while we were saving the image. Also, do all of the supported f; /archives/xfs-masters/2008-06/msg00061.html (11,610 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]