[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130306012800.GH1227@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:28:00 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.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 05:14:23PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Then, the operation simply isn't freezable while in progress and
> should be on the receiving end of failed-to-freeze error message and
> users who depend on suspend/hibernation working properly should be
> advised away from using nfs.
>
> It doesn't really changes anything. The current code is buggy. We're
> just not enforcing the rules strictly and people aren't hitting the
> bug often enough.
Just one more thing. Also, not being able to do retries without
side-effect doesn't mean it can't do retries at all. There are
syscalls which need to do things differently on re-entry (forgot which
one but there are several). They record the necessary state in the
restart block and resume from where they left off on re-entry. It
sure is hairy but is doable and we already have supporting
infrastructure. Not sure whether that would be worthwhile tho.
Thanks.
--
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