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 11:09:23 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130305190923.GI12795@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130305140312.243cb094@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Hello, Jeff.
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:03:12PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Sounds intriguing...
>
> I'm not sure what this really means for something like NFS though. How
> would you envision this working when we have long running syscalls that
> might sit waiting in the kernel indefinitely?
I think it is the same problem as being able to handle SIGKILL in
responsive manner. It could be tricky to implement for nfs but it at
least doesn't have to solve the problem twice.
> Here's my blue-sky, poorly-thought-out idea...
>
> We could add a signal (e.g. SIGFREEZE) that allows the sleeps in
> NFS/RPC layer to be interrupted. Those would return back toward
> userland with a particular type of error (sort of like ERESTARTSYS).
>
> Before returning from the kernel though, we could freeze the process.
> When it wakes up, then we could go back down and retry the call again
> (much like an ERESTARTSYS kind of thing).
>
> The tricky part here is that we'd need to distinguish between the case
> where we caught SIGFREEZE before sending an RPC vs. after. If we sent
> the call before freezing, then we don't want to resend it again. It
> might be a non-idempotent operation.
So, yeah, you are thinking pretty much the same as I'm.
> Sounds horrific to code up though... :)
I don't know the details of nfs but those events could essentially be
signaling that the system is gonna lose power. I think it would be a
good idea to solve it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-05 19:09 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
2013-03-05 19:03 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-05 19:09 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
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=20130305190923.GI12795@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).