[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130306213636.GP1227@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:36:36 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.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>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held!
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:31:10PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I do agree that we probably have *too* many of the stupid "let's
> check if we can freeze", and I suspect that the NFS code should get
> rid of the "freezable_schedule()" that is causing this warning
> (because I also agree that you should *not* freeze while holding
> locks, because it really can cause deadlocks), but I do suspect that
> network filesystems do need to have a few places where they check for
> freezing on their own... Exactly because freezing isn't *quite* like a
> signal.
Well, I don't really know much about nfs so I can't really tell, but
for most other cases, dealing with freezing like a signal should work
fine from what I've seen although I can't be sure before actually
trying. Trond, Bruce, can you guys please chime in?
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