From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held!
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:49:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130305174954.GG12795@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130305174648.GF12795@htj.dyndns.org>
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:46:48AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> So, I think this is why implementing freezer as a separate blocking
> mechanism isn't such a good idea. We're effectively introducing a
> completely new waiting state to a lot of unsuspecting paths which
> generates a lot of risks and eventually extra complexity to work
> around those. I think we really should update freezer to re-use the
> blocking points we already have - the ones used for signal delivery
> and ptracing. That way, other code paths don't have to worry about an
> extra stop state and we can confine most complexities to freezer
> proper.
Also, consolidating those wait states means that we can solve the
event-to-response latency problem for all three cases - signal, ptrace
and freezer, rather than adding separate backing-out strategy for
freezer.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-05 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-04 13:57 LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held! Ming Lei
2013-03-04 14:14 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-04 14:23 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-04 19:55 ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-04 20:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-04 22:08 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-05 13:23 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-05 17:46 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-05 17:49 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2013-03-05 19:03 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-05 19:09 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-05 23:39 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-05 23:47 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 18:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-06 18:53 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 21:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-06 21:24 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 21:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-06 21:36 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 21:40 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-13 15:17 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-31 0:07 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-03-07 11:41 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-07 15:25 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-07 15:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-07 15:59 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-07 16:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-07 16:45 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-07 17:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-07 17:16 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-07 21:43 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-08 14:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-03-07 20:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-03-07 16:00 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 18:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-06 18:40 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-06 18:45 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 1:10 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-06 1:14 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 1:28 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 12:00 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-05 23:11 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-03-06 0:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-03-06 0:30 ` [PATCH] lockdep: make lock held while freezing check optional Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-07 12:03 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2013-03-06 0:59 ` LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held! Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-06 1:05 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-03-06 1:16 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 3:11 ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-06 9:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-03-06 12:06 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-06 15:59 ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-06 18:23 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-06 18:37 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-06 20:15 ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-04 14:40 ` Ming Lei
2013-03-04 15:04 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-04 15:33 ` Ming Lei
2013-03-04 15:53 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-04 20:09 ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-04 20:10 ` Mandeep Singh Baines
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130305174954.GG12795@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@canonical.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=msb@chromium.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).