On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:38:54 -0400 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:11:58 -0400 > > Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On 06/07/2007 11:41 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>>> mount /var/lib/mythtv -oremount,ro > >>>> sync > >>>> umount /var/lib/mythtv > >>> Did this succeed? If the application is still truncating that file, the > >>> umount should have failed. > >> Shouldn't sync should wait for truncate to finish? > > > > I can't think of anything in there at present which would cause that to > > happen, and it's not immediately obvious how we _could_ make it happen - we > > have an inode which potentially has no dirty pages and which is itself > > clean. The truncate can span multiple journal commits, so forcing a > > journal commit in sync() won't necessarily block behind the truncate. > > > > I guess we could ask sync to speculatively take and release every inode's > > i_mutex or something. But even that would involve quite some hoop-jumping > > due to those infuriating spinlock-protected list_heads on the superblock. > > > > hmm. > > Yeah, I really don't know what to do with this either. > We have to have a bounds on how long we wait at shutdown, > but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to get notified > once a filesystem becomes idle (?). > > I suppose I could have the script loop on /proc/interrupts until > it sees the disk activity has tapered off.. > I don't recall clarity on this question: did the umount fail? Because it should have, in which case your script can poll that. - 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/