Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 15:17:37 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "exec: make de_thread() freezable (was: Re: Linux
 4.20-rc4)
Message-ID: <20181203141737.GY31738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <CAHk-=wgdsXyCaLsFEpyUpAeRqVS69u=xo4rzEN+cS=xwz2gajg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181203074700.GA21240@gmail.com>
 <20181203083942.GF31738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181203123149.GB31795@redhat.com>
 <20181203123857.GS31738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181203131006.GA10054@amd>
 <20181203135351.GU31738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181203141459.GA14789@amd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181203141459.GA14789@amd>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 03-12-18 15:14:59, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2018-12-03 14:53:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 03-12-18 14:10:06, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Mon 2018-12-03 13:38:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 03-12-18 13:31:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > > On 12/03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, I wouldn't mind to revert this because the code is really old and
> > > > > > we haven't seen many bug reports about failing suspend yet. But what is
> > > > > > the actual plan to make this work properly?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't see a simple solution...
> > > > > 
> > > > > But we need to fix exec/de_thread anyway, then we can probably reconsider
> > > > > this patch.
> > > > 
> > > > My concern is that de_thread fix might be too disruptive for stable
> > > > kernels while we might want to have a simple enough fix for the the
> > > > suspend issue in the meantime. That was actually the primary reason I've
> > > > acked the hack even though I didn't like it.
> > > 
> > > Do we care about failing sleep in stable? Does someone hit the issue there?
> > > 
> > > This sounds like issue only Android is hitting, and they run very
> > > heavily patched kernels, far away from mainline or stable.
> > 
> > But the underlying issue is the same and independent on their patches
> > AFAIU. And is this really a common problem to care about in stable? I
> > dunno to be honest but it sounds annoying for sure. Failing suspend is
> > something that doesn't make your day when you are in hurry and want
> > find out only later when your laptop heats up your bag ;)
> 
> In general, yes. In practice, if it happens 1 in 1000000 suspends, you
> don't care that much (but Android cares).

This argument just doesn't make any sense. Rare bugs are maybe even more
annoying because you do not expect them to happen. But I would be more
interested to see whether they are any downside. Is there any actual
risk to silence the lockup detector that you can see?

> Do we actually have reports of this happening for people outside
> Android?

Not that I am aware of.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs