On Fri 08-07-16 08:51:54, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 14:22 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Apart from alternative Dave was mentioning in other email, what is the > > point to use freezable wait from this path in the first place? > > > > nfs4_handle_exception does nfs4_wait_clnt_recover from the same path and > > that does wait_on_bit_action with TASK_KILLABLE so we are waiting in two > > different modes from the same path AFAICS. There do not seem to be other > > callers of nfs4_delay outside of nfs4_handle_exception. Sounds like > > something is not quite right here to me. If the nfs4_delay did regular > > wait then the freezing would fail as well but at least it would be clear > > who is the culrprit rather than having an indirect dependency. > > The codepaths involved there are a lot more complex than that > unfortunately. > > nfs4_delay is the function that we use to handle the case where the > server returns NFS4ERR_DELAY. Basically telling us that it's too busy > right now or has some transient error and the client should retry after > a small, sliding delay. > > That codepath could probably be made more freezer-safe. The typical > case however, is that we've sent a call and just haven't gotten a > reply. That's the trickier one to handle. Why using a regular non-freezable wait would be a problem? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
