[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130305174954.GG12795@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:49:54 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held!
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists