[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegsSshtqj2hjYt8+00m-OqXMbwpUiVJr412oqdF=69yLGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 07:31:00 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com>, brauner@...nel.org,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, ardb@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
david@...morbit.com, djwong@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
pavel@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, rafael@...nel.org, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] power: wire-up filesystem freeze/thaw with suspend/resume
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 at 14:09, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Sun 20-07-25 22:23:36, Askar Safin wrote:
> > - Suspend doesn't work if we try to read from fuse-sshfs filesystem while
> > network is down
>
> On the surface the problem is the same as the above two but the details
> here are subtly different. Here I expect (although I'm not 100% sure) the
> blocked process is inside the FUSE filesystem waiting for the FUSE daemon
> to reply (a /proc/<pid>/stack of the blocked process would be useful here).
> In theory, FUSE filesystem should be able to make the wait for reply in
> TASK_FREEZABLE state which would fix your issue. In any case this is very
> likely work for FUSE developers.
This is a known problem with an unknown solution.
We can fix some of the cases, but changing all filesystem locks to be
freezable is likely not workable.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists