On Friday, 10 November 2006 00:32, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:11:46AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > ? Not sure if I quite understand, but if dm breaks sync... something
> > > is teribly wrong with dm. And we do simple sys_sync()... so I do not
> > > think we have a problem.
> >
> > If you want to handle arbitrary kernel state, you might have a device-mapper
> > device somewhere lower down the stack of devices that is queueing any I/O
> > that reaches it. So anything waiting for I/O completion will wait until
> > the dm process that suspended that device has finished whatever it is doing
> > - and that might be a quick thing carried out by a userspace lvm tool, or
> > a long thing carried out by an administrator using dmsetup.
> >
> > I'm guessing you need a way of detecting such state lower down the stack
> > then optionally either aborting the operation telling the user it can't be
> > done at present; waiting for however long it takes (perhaps for ever if
> > the admin disappeared); or more probably skipping those devices on a
> > 'best endeavours' basis.
>
> Okay, so you claim that sys_sync can stall, waiting for administator?
>
> In such case we can simply do one sys_sync() before we start freezing
> userspace... or just more the only sys_sync() there. That way, admin
> has chance to unlock his system.
Well, this is a different story.
My point is that if we call sys_sync() _anyway_ before calling
freeze_filesystems(), then freeze_filesystems() is _safe_ (either the
sys_sync() blocks, or it doesn't in which case freeze_filesystems() won't
block either).
This means, however, that we can leave the patch as is (well, with the minor
fix I have already posted), for now, because it doesn't make things worse a
bit, but:
(a) it prevents xfs from being corrupted and
(b) it prevents journaling filesystems in general from replaying journals
after a failing resume.
Still, there is a problem with the possibility of potential lock-up - either
with the bdevs-freezing patch or without it - due to a suspended dm device
down the stack and solving that is a _separate_ issue.
Now if we use the userland suspend, there's no problem at all, I think,
because s2disk calls sync() before it goes to suspend_system(), so the
admin will have a chance to unclock the system and everything is fine and
dandy (although it should be documented somewhere, IMHO).
However, if the built-in swsusp is used, then well ... <looks> ... we can put
a call to sys_sync() before prepare_processes() in pm_suspend_disk().
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]
