On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 02:14, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 01:08 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 01:01, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 00:57 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > Okay, in that case I'd suggest removing create_freezeable_workqueue() > > > > and > > > > make all workqueues nonfreezable once again for 2.6.21 (as far as I > > > > know, only > > > > the two XFS workqueues are affected). > > > > > > I think Nigel might object but I forgot what specific trouble XFS was > > > causing him. > > > > We suspected that the XFS' worker threads might commit I/O after > > freeze_processes() has returned, but that hasn't been supported by evidence, > > as far as I can recall. > > > > Also, making them freezable was controversial ... > > Controversy is no reason to give in! Nevertheless, I think you're right > - I believe the XFS guys said they fixed the issue that had caused I/O > to be submitted post-freeze. Well, we'll see if it appears again, won't > we?
Sure, we will. :-) Rafael - 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/
