On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:38:54 -0400
Mark Lord <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:11:58 -0400
> > Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/07/2007 11:41 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>> mount /var/lib/mythtv -oremount,ro
> >>>> sync
> >>>> umount /var/lib/mythtv
> >>> Did this succeed? If the application is still truncating that file, the
> >>> umount should have failed.
> >> Shouldn't sync should wait for truncate to finish?
> >
> > I can't think of anything in there at present which would cause that to
> > happen, and it's not immediately obvious how we _could_ make it happen - we
> > have an inode which potentially has no dirty pages and which is itself
> > clean. The truncate can span multiple journal commits, so forcing a
> > journal commit in sync() won't necessarily block behind the truncate.
> >
> > I guess we could ask sync to speculatively take and release every inode's
> > i_mutex or something. But even that would involve quite some hoop-jumping
> > due to those infuriating spinlock-protected list_heads on the superblock.
> >
> > hmm.
>
> Yeah, I really don't know what to do with this either.
> We have to have a bounds on how long we wait at shutdown,
> but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to get notified
> once a filesystem becomes idle (?).
>
> I suppose I could have the script loop on /proc/interrupts until
> it sees the disk activity has tapered off..
>
I don't recall clarity on this question: did the umount fail?
Because it should have, in which case your script can poll that.
-
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]
