On Wednesday, 28 February 2007 02:14, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
quoted text
> 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
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/