Re: [PATCH 2/8] fuse: flush pending fuse events before aborting the connection

Darrick J. Wong
2025-09-23T20:59:37Z

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 08:56:47PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 16:54, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what you're referring to by "special" -- are you asking
> > about why I added the touch_softlockup_watchdog() call here but not in
> > fuse_wait_aborted()? I think it could use that treatment too, but once
> > you abort all the pending requests they tend to go away very quickly.
> > It might be the case that nobody's gotten a warning simply because the
> > aborted requests all go away in under 30 seconds.
>
> Maybe I'm not understanding how the softlockup detector works. I
> thought that it triggers if task is spinning in a tight loop. That
> precludes any timeouts, since that means that the task went to sleep.
>
> So what's happening here?

Hrm, I thought the softlockup detector also complains about tasks stuck
in uninterruptible sleep, but you're right, it *does* schedule() so the
softlockup detector won't complain about it.

I think. Let me go try to prove that empirically. :)

--D

> Thanks,
> Miklos
>