On Thu 2007-06-28 17:27:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 June 2007 22:49, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > FWIW, I'm on record stating that "sync" is not sufficient to quiesce an
> > > XFS
> > > filesystem for a suspend/resume to work safely and have argued that the
> > > only
> >
> > Hmm, so XFS writes to disk even when its threads are frozen?
> >
> > > safe thing to do is freeze the filesystem before suspend and thaw it after
> > > resume. This is why I originally asked you to test that with the other
> > > problem
> >
> > Could you add that to the XFS threads if it is really required? They
> > do know that they are being frozen for suspend.
>
> Well, do you remember the workqueues? They are still nonfreezable.
Oops, that would explain it :-(. Can we make XFS stop using them?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/
