Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759497Ab3CGQZN (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:25:13 -0500 Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com ([209.85.220.182]:51952 "EHLO mail-vc0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755076Ab3CGQZL (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:25:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4FA345DA4F4AE44899BD2B03EEEC2FA9286B511E@sacexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com> References: <20130305174954.GG12795@htj.dyndns.org> <20130305140312.243cb094@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20130305190923.GI12795@htj.dyndns.org> <20130305183941.19ff39ce@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20130305234700.GE1227@htj.dyndns.org> <20130306181608.GA18687@redhat.com> <20130306185304.GM1227@htj.dyndns.org> <20130306212452.GO1227@htj.dyndns.org> <20130306213636.GP1227@htj.dyndns.org> <20130307064140.71c0936b@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <4FA345DA4F4AE44899BD2B03EEEC2FA9286B511E@sacexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:25:10 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2_xJ5cLXbcNvAEp-QfR6larWSvE Message-ID: Subject: Re: LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held! From: Linus Torvalds To: "Myklebust, Trond" Cc: Jeff Layton , Tejun Heo , Oleg Nesterov , Mandeep Singh Baines , Ming Lei , "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Al Viro Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1501 Lines: 34 On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > > It _shouldn't_ be an interruption unless the filesystem can't make > progress. So how can we tell? Calling "freezable_schedule()" if you're not ready to be frozen is not good. And nobody but the NFS code can know. You might want to introduce some counter that counts number of outstanding non-interruptible events, and only call the "freezable" version if that counter is zero. A better alternative might be to *never* call the freezable version. Because those freezable_*() things are really quite disgusting, and are wrong - they don't actually freeze the process, they say "I don't care if you freeze me while I sleep", and you might actually wake up *while* the system is being frozen. I think the whole concept is broken. Rafaei - comments? The function really is crap, regardless of any unrelated NFS problems. So what NFS could do instead is actually check the "do I need to freeze" flag, and if you need to freeze you consider it an abort - and do *not* try to continue. Just freeze, and then act as if the machine got rebooted as far as NFS was concerned. That should work anyway, no? That does sound a lot more complex, though. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/