lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held!
Date
On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 06:11:10 PM J. Bruce Fields 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?

I think we should do that.

Thanks,
Rafael


--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-06 01:21    [W:0.218 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site