From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exec: make de_thread() freezable
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:18:58 +0100
Message-ID: <20181113161858.GE30990@redhat.com>
References: <1541994885-20059-1-git-send-email-chanho.min@lge.com>
 <20181113145339.GD16182@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181113145339.GD16182@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>, Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Seungho Park <seungho1.park@lge.com>, Inkyu Hwang <inkyu.hwang@lge.com>, Donghwan Jung <donghwan.jung@lge.com>, Jongsung Kim <neidhard.kim@lge.com>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 11/13, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Mon 12-11-18 12:54:45, Chanho Min wrote:
> > Suspend fails due to the exec family of functions blocking the freezer.
> > The casue is that de_thread() sleeps in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE waiting for
> > all sub-threads to die, and we have the deadlock if one of them is frozen.
> > This also can occur with the schedule() waiting for the group thread leader
> > to exit if it is frozen.
> >
> > In our machine, it causes freeze timeout as bellows.
> >
> > Freezing of tasks failed after 20.010 seconds (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0):
> > setcpushares-ls D ffffffc00008ed70     0  5817   1483 0x0040000d
> >  Call trace:
> > [<ffffffc00008ed70>] __switch_to+0x88/0xa0
> > [<ffffffc000d1c30c>] __schedule+0x1bc/0x720
> > [<ffffffc000d1ca90>] schedule+0x40/0xa8
> > [<ffffffc0001cd784>] flush_old_exec+0xdc/0x640
> > [<ffffffc000220360>] load_elf_binary+0x2a8/0x1090
> > [<ffffffc0001ccff4>] search_binary_handler+0x9c/0x240
> > [<ffffffc00021c584>] load_script+0x20c/0x228
> > [<ffffffc0001ccff4>] search_binary_handler+0x9c/0x240
> > [<ffffffc0001ce8e0>] do_execveat_common.isra.14+0x4f8/0x6e8
> > [<ffffffc0001cedd0>] compat_SyS_execve+0x38/0x48
> > [<ffffffc00008de30>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28
> >
> > To fix this, make de_thread() freezable. It looks safe and works fine.
>
> It's been some time since I have looked into this code so bear with me.
> One thing is not really clear to me. Why does it help to exclude this
> particular task from the freezer

we don't exclude it,

> when it is not sleeping in the freezer.

Yes, it is not sleeping in __refrigerator(), but it does

	schedule();
	freezer_count();

so it will enter __refrigerator() right after wakeup. If it won't be woken
up we do not care, we can consider it "frozen".

> I can see how other threads need to be zapped and TASK_WAKEKILL doesn't
> do that but shouldn't we fix that instead?

Not sure I understand, but unlikely we can (or want) to make __refrigerator()
killable.

Otherwise, how can we fix that?

Oleg.