On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 06:31:39PM +0800, Yu Chen wrote:
>> The xfs-buf/dm-1 should be freezed according to
>> commit 8018ec083c72 ("xfs: mark all internal workqueues
>> as freezable"), thus a easier way might be have to revert
>> commit 18f1df4e00ce ("xfs: Make xfsaild freezeable
>> again") for now, after this reverting the xfsaild/dm-1
>> becomes non-freezable again, thus pm does not see this
>> thread - unless we find a graceful way to treat xfsaild/dm-1
>> as 'frozen' if it is waiting for an already 'frozen' task,
>> or if the filesystem freeze is added in.
>>
>> Any comments would be much appreciated.
>
> Reverting 18f1df4e00ce ("xfs: Make xfsaild freezeable again")
> would break the proper form of the kthread for it to be freezable.
> This "form" is not defined formally, and sadly its just a form
> learned throughout years over different kthreads in the kernel.
If the behavior breaks then the "form" is broken.
> I'm also not convinced all our hibernation / suspend woes would be fixed by
> reverting this commit, its why I worked instead on formalizing a proper freeze
> / thaw, which a lot of filesystems already implement prior to system
> hibernation / suspend / resume [0].
>
> I'll be respinning this series without the last patch, provided I'm able to
> ensure I don't need the ext[234] hack I did in that thread. Can you test the
> first 3 patches *only* on that series and seeing if that helps on your XFS
> front as well?
Those do not seem suitable for a -stable backport. We can always
follow on with these patches once -stable and mainline are back to
their baseline behavior.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
