Re: WARNING: syz-executor still has locks held!

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed 20-03-19 20:45:12, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 20-03-19 18:30:42, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > [Cc Ingo and Chanho Min - the thread starts here
> > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/0000000000004cdec6058485b2ce@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > >
> > > On Wed 20-03-19 16:00:54, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > 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".
> > >
> > > But the fundamental semantic is the same right? Both might be sitting on
> > > locks that might interfere with other tasks and we should be _extra_
> > > careful when using them. In an ideal world, none of them is really
> > > needed.
> > 
> > Ah, it seems that we misunderstood each other... see below.
> > 
> > > So my question remains. Can we drop the warning for PF_FREEZER_SKIP
> > > tasks as well?
> > 
> > But why?
> 
> To drop the warning which led to the revert.

Ble, I should have checked the code more closely. freezer_count does
clear the flag before it goes to the fridge. My bad. So we need
freezable_schedule_unsafe unsafe here to workaround the original problem
and do not trigger the warning.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux