On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Can you try add a call to show_state_filter(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) in > the error path of try_to_freeze_tasks(), where it prints the "refusing > to freeze" message? It will print the stack trace of every thread > since they are all in the freezer, so the output will be very long. > If you provide a patch, I will give it a try. - Sedat - > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wednesday, August 07, 2013 04:25:14 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > Changes since 20130806: >>> > >>> > The ext4 tree lost its build failure. >>> > >>> > The mvebu tree gained a build failure so I used the version from >>> > next-20130806. >>> > >>> > The akpm tree gained conflicts against the ext4 tree. >>> > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > >>> >>> [ CC ext4 and pm folks ] >>> >>> I saw this on my 1st suspend which was not successful (2nd and 3rd try >>> I could suspend and resume): >>> >>> [ 5467.724074] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done. >>> [ 5467.973575] PM: Preparing system for mem sleep >>> [ 5467.974121] Freezing user space processes ... >>> [ 5487.970574] Freezing of tasks failed after 20.010 seconds (1 tasks >>> refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0): >>> [ 5487.970591] DOM Worker D ffffffff81811820 0 2437 1 0x00000004 >>> [ 5487.970595] ffff880056ca3ca8 0000000000000002 00000000002d627f >>> 000009af00000002 >>> [ 5487.970598] ffff880066ede640 ffff880056ca3fd8 ffff880056ca3fd8 >>> ffff880056ca3fd8 >>> [ 5487.970601] ffff880119f98340 ffff880066ede640 ffff880056ca3ca8 >>> ffff88011fad5118 >>> [ 5487.970604] Call Trace: >>> [ 5487.970612] [<ffffffff81144360>] ? __lock_page+0x70/0x70 >>> [ 5487.970615] [<ffffffff816e8179>] schedule+0x29/0x70 >>> [ 5487.970618] [<ffffffff816e824f>] io_schedule+0x8f/0xd0 >>> [ 5487.970621] [<ffffffff8114436e>] sleep_on_page+0xe/0x20 >>> [ 5487.970624] [<ffffffff816e4be2>] __wait_on_bit+0x62/0x90 >>> [ 5487.970627] [<ffffffff81144f9b>] ? find_get_pages_tag+0xcb/0x170 >>> [ 5487.970630] [<ffffffff811444d0>] wait_on_page_bit+0x80/0x90 >>> [ 5487.970633] [<ffffffff8108a0e0>] ? wake_atomic_t_function+0x40/0x40 >>> [ 5487.970636] [<ffffffff811445ec>] filemap_fdatawait_range+0x10c/0x190 >>> [ 5487.970640] [<ffffffff81145ce0>] filemap_write_and_wait_range+0x50/0x80 >>> [ 5487.970644] [<ffffffff81246c3d>] ext4_sync_file+0x15d/0x340 >>> [ 5487.970648] [<ffffffff811db8dd>] do_fsync+0x5d/0x90 >>> [ 5487.970651] [<ffffffff811dbcc0>] SyS_fsync+0x10/0x20 >>> [ 5487.970655] [<ffffffff816f25ef>] tracesys+0xe1/0xe6 >>> [ 5487.970658] >>> [ 5487.970659] Restarting tasks ... done. >>> >>> With yesterday's -next I did not have issues like this. >> >> It looks like ext4 was doing fsync, so it scheduled a write a waited for it >> to complete, but that never happened (most likely whoever was supposed to do >> the write had been already frozen then). >> >> Thanks, >> Rafael >>
