From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar 14 08:15:11 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FE716A4CE
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:15:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (f170.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.170])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6D743D2F
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:15:10 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2E8F4QS023182;
	Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:15:05 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:00:22 EST."
             <20050314024439.G20708@mail.chesapeake.net> 
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:15:04 +0100
Message-ID: <23181.1110788104@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: filesystem suspension. 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:15:11 -0000

In message <20050314024439.G20708@mail.chesapeake.net>, Jeff Roberson writes:

>Comments?  Other proposals?  I'd like to get this sorted out for 6.0.  I
>may come up with some interim solution for RELENG_5 because the vrele
>problem has caused deadlocks there.

I agree that the vn_start_write() thing is not a Good Thing and it would
certainly be desirable to get the entire snapshot thing into UFS/FFS
where it belongs.

Without digging through the entire issue, I would tend to lean towards
the "catch them in the vop_*() which write" model on general principles.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.