On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> With syscall paths out of the way, the surface is reduced a lot.
So the issue is syscalls that don't react to signals, and that can
potentially wait a long time.
Like NFS with a network hickup. Which is not at all unlikely. Think
wireless network, somebody trying to get on a network share, things
not working, and closing the damn lid because you give up.
So I do agree that we probably have *too* many of the stupid "let's
check if we can freeze", and I suspect that the NFS code should get
rid of the "freezable_schedule()" that is causing this warning
(because I also agree that you should *not* freeze while holding
locks, because it really can cause deadlocks), but I do suspect that
network filesystems do need to have a few places where they check for
freezing on their own... Exactly because freezing isn't *quite* like a
signal.
Linus
--
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
