On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:59:00PM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:49:54AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:46:48AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> > So, I think this is why implementing freezer as a separate blocking > >> > mechanism isn't such a good idea. We're effectively introducing a > >> > completely new waiting state to a lot of unsuspecting paths which > >> > generates a lot of risks and eventually extra complexity to work > >> > around those. I think we really should update freezer to re-use the > >> > blocking points we already have - the ones used for signal delivery > >> > and ptracing. That way, other code paths don't have to worry about an > >> > extra stop state and we can confine most complexities to freezer > >> > proper. > >> > >> Also, consolidating those wait states means that we can solve the > >> event-to-response latency problem for all three cases - signal, ptrace > >> and freezer, rather than adding separate backing-out strategy for > >> freezer. > > > > Meanwhile, as none of this sounds likely to be done this time > > around--are we backing out the new lockdep warnings? > > > > --b. > > What if we hide it behind a Kconfig? Its finding real bugs. > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/5/583 If it's really just a 2-line patch to try_to_freeze(), could it just be carried out-of-tree by people that are specifically working on tracking down these problems? But I don't have strong feelings about it--as long as it doesn't result in the same known issues getting reported again and again.... --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
