Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:09:57 -0500 | Subject | Re: [patch] sys_sync livelock fix | From | (bill davidsen) |
| |
In article <3C69FB14.167B899E@zip.com.au> you write: | Bill Davidsen wrote: | > | > > But we want sync to be useful. | > | > No one has proposed otherwise. Unless you think that a possible hang is | > useful, the questions becomes adding all dirty buffers to the elevator, | > then (a) waiting or (b) returning. Either satisfies SuSv2. | | errr. Bill. I wrote the patch. Please take this as a sign | that I'm not happy with the current implementation :)
Sorry, I had been sitting at a keyboard for about 16 hours when I typed that, and didn't look at the sender... Lot's of other typos in there as well, sign of need for 3-4 hours sleep.
But I think sync(2) as a checkpoint, write out all dirty at the moment of sync call, is fine and deterministic, and all that.
That serves the shutdown case as well, if there is a process in some unkillable state, but somehow still writing, at least the system will go down. I'm not sure any process not killable with kill -9 is able to do anything, but I won't bet on it.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/
| |