LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Takashi Sato <>
To: David Chinner <>
Cc: "" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] freeze feature ver 1.0
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:01:45 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)


David Chinner wrote:
> Can you please split this into two patches - one which introduces the
> generic functionality *without* the timeout stuff, and a second patch
> that introduces the timeouts.

I will send the split patches in subsequent mails. 
> I think this timeout stuff is dangerous - it adds significant
> complexity and really does not protect against anything that can't
> be done in userspace.  i.e. If your system is running well enough
> for the timer to fire and unfreeze the filesystem, it's running well
> enough for you to do "freeze X; sleep Y; unfreeze X".  

If the process is terminated at "sleep Y" by an unexpected
accident (e.g. signals),  the filesystem will be left frozen.
So, I think the timeout is needed to unfreeze more definitely.

> FWIW, there is nothing to guarantee that the filesystem has finished
> freezing when the timeout fires (it's not uncommon to see
> freeze_bdev() taking *minutes*) and unfreezing in the middle of a
> freeze operation will cause problems - either for the filesystem
> in the middle of a freeze operation, or for whatever is freezing the
> filesystem to get a consistent image.....

Do you mention the freeze_bdev()'s hang?
The salvage target of my timeout is freeze process's accident as below.
- It is killed before calling the unfreeze ioctl
- It causes a deadlock by accessing the frozen filesystem
So the delayed work for the timeout is set after all of freeze operations
in freeze_bdev() in my patches.
I think the filesystem dependent code (write_super_lockfs operation)
should be implemented not to cause a hang.

Cheers, Takashi

             reply	other threads:[~2008-03-28  9:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-28  9:01 Takashi Sato [this message]
2008-03-30 22:31 ` David Chinner
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-03-24 11:11 Takashi Sato
2008-03-25  1:33 ` David Chinner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH] freeze feature ver 1.0' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).