From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBFDE26CE17; Tue, 23 Sep 2025 20:59:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758661177; cv=none; b=Fi7KAl3A4owzjU/KUKykYUf4J31oD0yAKq1ErZu5xfqHYY5g4V6Y2SnHQPACwBFA1ZKv1uc4E4m9C7NQbQ2LjDbFprD/wXypn4ZaEMw1UyuubwQjOWVTIpkSWTRthSv8fyld4e2jkO6VYzVlKEeHXF3u057xt23MlfC7rndluEo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758661177; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NIbwgI3W7ieltAoE7xVUGc0BdIsHi9VokAUkaobzrUg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PjS054gm2lVuV8SZyd9R3ruNYFnVCzeA3NgjcGTsXC6drPSMlEFqdU1ZlDonbz0cwOiZL6ZAfFfylmhfqb45+3YSl/u/0KRjg6uv6vP6Pna6wB0L4eTuTnT+NmIXWOMcwt+olrnKN7UBmF5zEwzh10vCWRBJfOUEflkW59sEeYI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Pvs6xma4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Pvs6xma4" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 292ECC4CEF5; Tue, 23 Sep 2025 20:59:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1758661177; bh=NIbwgI3W7ieltAoE7xVUGc0BdIsHi9VokAUkaobzrUg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Pvs6xma4n1tE48JixcQLRYWhC4PFCYxSNyEJiUvwjhm3nonZIV+DY3sBthUcjB5/z JRi8RhX0h3Vy8yGIVCMgRAWD4dT/nf8o0oB95a6F9dLwSizamZMz4V1/jPIIMtp88e gSRfgzAcV12+NHHcLQfEHWAwucnlDiF3XKj/DBbw7L46h2jPdIGS4Bnpoaqb0xgMC6 57HbcTAntVs4p7uocGtzMAbz1at43P6umzLGKX3uwBA6ZAFep1528QgyQrbi4fcnka xwZiHt5QIBqRRKI/r5QigBug9GQ4S9E7ApaIMaaGnA0deXeh7McCvCZtoV8sP09J5w BLzaGI1EQQBEA== Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:59:36 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: bernd@bsbernd.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, John@groves.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, neal@gompa.dev, joannelkoong@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] fuse: flush pending fuse events before aborting the connection Message-ID: <20250923205936.GI1587915@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <175798149979.381990.14913079500562122255.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <175798150070.381990.9068347413538134501.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20250923145413.GH8117@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 08:56:47PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 16:54, Darrick J. Wong 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 >