On Fri, Oct 15, 2004, Scott Long wrote: > Andrey Chernov wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 08:39:34PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > > > >>FWIW, I think that doing a swapoff in the shutdown path is just asking > >>for trouble. Fixing whatever bug this is would of course be nice, but > >>the need for swapoff here is a hack and only opens up up to problems. > > > > > >I agree. It looks like sort of race happens. Application (cvsupd) can be > >killed, but its inodes activity delayed by softupdates a bit more (just > >raw guess). I see no useful purpose to call swapoff(8) at shutdown stage, > >correct me, if I am not right. > > > > The swapoff hack is needed so that the swapper will close the swap > device and remove the reference on the gmirror instance, which in turn > allows gmirror to know that it can close itself down. Pawel has a patch that moves the swapoff() later in the shutdown sequence, after all user processes have been killed. It should make swapoff() basically a no-op / sanity check, since nothing should actually be paged out at that point.Received on Sat Oct 16 2004 - 02:47:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:17 UTC