Re: [RFC 2/5] fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
Cc: "mcgrof@kernel.org" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	"boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	"ONeukum@suse.com" <ONeukum@suse.com>,
	"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"nborisov@suse.com" <nborisov@suse.com>,
	"oleg.b.antonyan@gmail.com" <oleg.b.antonyan@gmail.com>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"pavel@ucw.cz" <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	"darrick.wong@oracle.com" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	"viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"ming.lei@redhat.com" <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
	"rjw@rjwysocki.net" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"jgross@suse.com" <jgross@suse.com>,
	"oleksandr@natalenko.name" <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
	"todd.e.brandt@linux.intel.com" <todd.e.brandt@linux.intel.com>,
	"martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"jikos@kernel.org" <jikos@kernel.org>,
	"len.brown@intel.com" <len.brown@intel.com>,
	"tytso@mit.edu" <tytso@mit.edu>, "jack@suse.cz" <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] fs: freeze on suspend and thaw on resume
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 22:39:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171003203936.GH2294@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1507062758.2567.22.camel@wdc.com>

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:32:39PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:23 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:02:22PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 11:53 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > +static bool super_allows_freeze(struct super_block *sb)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	return !!(sb->s_type->fs_flags & FS_FREEZE_ON_SUSPEND);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > A minor comment: if "!!" would be left out the compiler will perform the
> > > conversion from int to bool implicitly
> > 
> > For all compilers?
> 
> Let's have a look at the output of the following commands:
> 
> $ PAGER= git grep 'typedef.*[[:blank:]]bool;' include
> include/linux/types.h:typedef _Bool                     bool;
> $ PAGER= git grep std= Makefile
> Makefile:               -fomit-frame-pointer -std=gnu89 $(HOST_LFS_CFLAGS)
> Makefile:                  -std=gnu89 $(call cc-option,-fno-PIE)
> 
> From https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.2.0/gcc/C-Dialect-Options.html#C-Dialect-Options:
> ‘gnu89’
> GNU dialect of ISO C90 (including some C99 features).
> 
> I think this means that the Linux kernel tree can only be compiled correctly
> by compilers that support the C11 type _Bool.

:*) beautiful, thanks.

> > > Anyway, I agree with the approach of this patch and I think
> > > that freezing filesystems before processes are frozen would be a big step
> > > forward.
> > 
> > Great! But please note, the current implementation calls fs_suspend_freeze()
> > *after* try_to_freeze_tasks(), ie: this implementation freezes userspace and
> > only after then filesystems.
> 
> What will the impact be of that choice on filesystems implemented in userspace?

Depends on what kernel hooks those use? Also now is a good time for those working
on userspace filesystems to chime in :) Its why I am stating -- I am not saying
I have found the right order, I have find the right order that works for me, and
we need consensus on what the right order should be.

  Luis