On Wednesday, 25 October 2006 02:13, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:37:37PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > Do you mean calling sys_sync() after the userspace has been frozen
> > > > may not be sufficient?
> > >
> > > In most cases it probably is, but sys_sync() doesn't provide any
> > > guarantees that the filesystem is not being used or written to after
> > > it completes. Given that every so often I hear about an XFS filesystem
> > > that was corrupted by suspend, I don't think this is sufficient...
> >
> > Userspace is frozen. There's noone that can write to the XFS
> > filesystem.
>
> Sure, no new userspace processes can write data, but what about the
> internal state of the filesystem?
>
> All a sync guarantees is that the filesystem is consistent when the
> sync returns and XFS provides this guarantee by writing all data and
> ensuring all metadata changes are logged so if a crash occurs it can
> be recovered (which provides the sync guarantee). hence after a
> sys_sync(), XFS will still have lots of dirty metadata that needs to
> be written to disk at some time in the future so the transactions
> can be removed from the log.
>
> This dirty metadata can be flushed at any time, and the dirty state
> is kept in XFS structures and not always in page structures (think
> multipage metadata buffers).
Are the dirty metadata flushed by a kernel thread?
Greetings,
Rafael
--
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
R. Buckminster Fuller
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]