Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 00:12:34 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Ben Chan <benchan@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] freezer: add unsafe versions of freezable helpers
Message-ID: <20130505221234.GA18470@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>
References: <1367615050-3894-1-git-send-email-ccross@android.com>
 <20130505092318.GD22239@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20130505092318.GD22239@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

Hi!

> > NFS calls the freezable helpers with locks held, which is unsafe
> > and caused lockdep warnings when 6aa9707 "lockdep: check that no
> > locks held at freeze time" was applied (reverted in dbf520a).
> > Add new *_unsafe versions of the helpers that will not run the
> > lockdep test when 6aa9707 is reapplied, and call them from NFS.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/nfs/inode.c          |  2 +-
> >  fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c       |  2 +-
> >  fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c       |  4 ++--
> >  include/linux/freezer.h | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  net/sunrpc/sched.c      |  2 +-
> >  5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> > index 1f94167..53cbee5 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ int nfs_wait_bit_killable(void *word)
> >  {
> >  	if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> >  		return -ERESTARTSYS;
> > -	freezable_schedule();
> > +	freezable_schedule_unsafe();
> 
> I'd suggest naming such variants _unkillable() instead of _unsafe().
> 
> There's nothing inherently 'unsafe' about it: the user asked for a hard 
> NFS mount and is getting it: with the side effect that it exposes the 
> machine to network delays in a 'hard' way as well. Which means suspend may 
> block indefinitely as well on network failure.

You only want to use _unsafe() variants when you enter refrigerator
with locks held.

And entering refrigerator with locks is tricky... and unsafe :-). It
is not directly related to killability.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html