Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-12 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > I should take some sleep now, so I can't test the patch, but I don't > > think it will help. If someone has PF_FREEZE set, he should be in > > refrigerator. > > OK, so if that doesn't help, here's an alternate approach - this > lets xfsbufd track when its entering the refrigerator(), so

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-12 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
Hi, On Tuesday, 12 of April 2005 01:51, Pavel Machek wrote: ]--snip--[ > > Since the refrigerator() call is in place in the main xfsbufd loop, > > I suspect we're hitting that second case here, where a low memory > > situation is resulting in someone attempting to wakeup xfsbufd -- > > I'm not

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-12 Thread Barry K. Nathan
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:04:25PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > OK, so if that doesn't help, here's an alternate approach - this > > lets xfsbufd track when its entering the refrigerator(), so that > > other callers know that attempts to wake it are futile. > > Thanks, this patch helped. I can

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-12 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
Hi, On Tuesday, 12 of April 2005 01:51, Pavel Machek wrote: ]--snip--[ Since the refrigerator() call is in place in the main xfsbufd loop, I suspect we're hitting that second case here, where a low memory situation is resulting in someone attempting to wakeup xfsbufd -- I'm not sure if

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-12 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! I should take some sleep now, so I can't test the patch, but I don't think it will help. If someone has PF_FREEZE set, he should be in refrigerator. OK, so if that doesn't help, here's an alternate approach - this lets xfsbufd track when its entering the refrigerator(), so that

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-11 Thread Nathan Scott
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:51:10AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > I should take some sleep now, so I can't test the patch, but I don't > think it will help. If someone has PF_FREEZE set, he should be in > refrigerator. OK, so if that doesn't help, here's an alternate approach - this lets xfsbufd

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-11 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > > > > No, XFS is my root filesystem. :( (Now that I think about it, would > > > > > modularizing XFS and using an initrd be OK?) > > > > > > > > Yes, loading xfs from initrd should help. [At least it did during > > > > suse9.3 testing.] > > > > > > Once I modularized xfs and switched to

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-11 Thread Nathan Scott
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:57:59PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > No, XFS is my root filesystem. :( (Now that I think about it, would > > > > modularizing XFS and using an initrd be OK?) > > > > > > Yes, loading xfs from initrd should help. [At least it did during > > > suse9.3

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-11 Thread Nathan Scott
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:57:59PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! No, XFS is my root filesystem. :( (Now that I think about it, would modularizing XFS and using an initrd be OK?) Yes, loading xfs from initrd should help. [At least it did during suse9.3 testing.] Once I

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-11 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! No, XFS is my root filesystem. :( (Now that I think about it, would modularizing XFS and using an initrd be OK?) Yes, loading xfs from initrd should help. [At least it did during suse9.3 testing.] Once I modularized xfs and switched to using an initrd, the

Re: [xfs-masters] swsusp vs. xfs [was Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

2005-04-11 Thread Nathan Scott
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:51:10AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: I should take some sleep now, so I can't test the patch, but I don't think it will help. If someone has PF_FREEZE set, he should be in refrigerator. OK, so if that doesn't help, here's an alternate approach - this lets xfsbufd track