[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190320150053.GD21673@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:00:54 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+b70f2aabc707c69c9239@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
chanho.min@....com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pavel@....cz,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: WARNING: syz-executor still has locks held!
On 03/20, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Wed 20-03-19 14:24:11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes we do hold the cgred mutex while calling freezable_schedule but why
> > > are we getting a warning is not really clear to me. The task should be
> > > hidden from the freezer so why do we warn at all?
> >
> > try_to_freeze() calls debug_check_no_locks_held() and this makes sense.
>
> Yes it does. But it already ignores PF_NOFREEZE tasks and I fail to see
> why is PF_FREEZER_SKIP any different.
But they differ. PF_NOFREEZE is a "sticky" flag for kthreads. Set by default,
cleared by set_freezable() if you want a freezable kthread.
PF_FREEZER_SKIP means that a sleeping freezable task will call try_to_freeze()
right after schedule() returns, so try_to_freeze_tasks() can safely count it as
"already frozen".
> it seems that skipping the task was the only viable option
> to fix suspend issues
Yes, de_thread() should use freezable_schedule(), iow I hope we will reconsider
this (reverted) patch.
> as removing the cgred is way way too complicated.
We need to do this anyway, this leads to other more serious problems...
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists