From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E606C43381 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6EB92184D for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:12:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1553094767; bh=y3d0ZCvnI3wqMUc4Bm8hyrm3yD8RBSNXHXeCIO8D5t0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=QSi+cQBiqWSCehSQ2ImDvF1BslHbebT/zr6kPBssqn5Jbe3sPUKIVwpn1Gd9vVDPT KQjk2Y6kgH2/3MlTA4pIesd7jOUUcnTZ0AxpN60JDJM0m7uTHg8WmU/57rv89QT4b/ exSjVxp3oMs+YNamrDoDQDSrgmW0DViLDJqOMmDw= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727556AbfCTPMq (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:12:46 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40922 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726169AbfCTPMq (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:12:46 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CD8AE07; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:12:42 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: syzbot , chanho.min@lge.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: WARNING: syz-executor still has locks held! Message-ID: <20190320151242.GC8696@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <0000000000000e4a41057b6c9792@google.com> <0000000000004cdec6058485b2ce@google.com> <20190320131655.GA8696@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190320132410.GB21673@redhat.com> <20190320132936.GB8696@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190320150053.GD21673@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190320150053.GD21673@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Cc Ingo and Chanho Min - the thread starts here http://lkml.kernel.org/r/0000000000004cdec6058485b2ce@google.com] On Wed 20-03-19 16:00:54, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 03/20, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Wed 20-03-19 14:24:11, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 03/20, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes we do hold the cgred mutex while calling freezable_schedule but why > > > > are we getting a warning is not really clear to me. The task should be > > > > hidden from the freezer so why do we warn at all? > > > > > > try_to_freeze() calls debug_check_no_locks_held() and this makes sense. > > > > Yes it does. But it already ignores PF_NOFREEZE tasks and I fail to see > > why is PF_FREEZER_SKIP any different. > > But they differ. PF_NOFREEZE is a "sticky" flag for kthreads. Set by default, > cleared by set_freezable() if you want a freezable kthread. > > PF_FREEZER_SKIP means that a sleeping freezable task will call try_to_freeze() > right after schedule() returns, so try_to_freeze_tasks() can safely count it as > "already frozen". But the fundamental semantic is the same right? Both might be sitting on locks that might interfere with other tasks and we should be _extra_ careful when using them. In an ideal world, none of them is really needed. So my question remains. Can we drop the warning for PF_FREEZER_SKIP tasks as well? > > it seems that skipping the task was the only viable option > > to fix suspend issues > > Yes, de_thread() should use freezable_schedule(), iow I hope we will reconsider > this (reverted) patch. As long as we do not have a better solution for the original problem then revert just because of a pointless warning is not really ideal. I am wondering why I do not see any of people acking the patch is in CC of the revert. > > as removing the cgred is way way too complicated. > > We need to do this anyway, this leads to other more serious problems... Yes but this is far away and it doesn't really seem like a stable tree material either and I am pretty sure that people on older kernels would like to not see suspend failures. Those are annoying as hell. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs