| Message ID | 1367458508-9133-11-git-send-email-ccross@android.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 06:35:08PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote: > Avoid waking up every thread sleeping in read call on an AF_UNIX > socket during suspend and resume by calling a freezable blocking > call. Previous patches modified the freezer to avoid sending > wakeups to threads that are blocked in freezable blocking calls. > > This call was selected to be converted to a freezable call because > it doesn't hold any locks or release any resources when interrupted > that might be needed by another freezing task or a kernel driver > during suspend, and is a common site where idle userspace tasks are > blocked. Heh, so you are aware of the deadlock possibilities. Good selection of spots. For all the conversion patches. Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Thanks.
On Thursday, May 02, 2013 05:08:12 PM Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 06:35:08PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote: > > Avoid waking up every thread sleeping in read call on an AF_UNIX > > socket during suspend and resume by calling a freezable blocking > > call. Previous patches modified the freezer to avoid sending > > wakeups to threads that are blocked in freezable blocking calls. > > > > This call was selected to be converted to a freezable call because > > it doesn't hold any locks or release any resources when interrupted > > that might be needed by another freezing task or a kernel driver > > during suspend, and is a common site where idle userspace tasks are > > blocked. > > Heh, so you are aware of the deadlock possibilities. Good selection > of spots. For all the conversion patches. > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> I wonder if that includes [3/10] (just to get the record straight)? Rafael
Hello, Rafael. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: >> Heh, so you are aware of the deadlock possibilities. Good selection >> of spots. For all the conversion patches. >> >> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > > I wonder if that includes [3/10] (just to get the record straight)? I think we want the lockdep annotations before these go in. I'll review Colin's new series later today. Thanks! -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > Hello, Rafael. > > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: >>> Heh, so you are aware of the deadlock possibilities. Good selection >>> of spots. For all the conversion patches. >>> >>> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> >> >> I wonder if that includes [3/10] (just to get the record straight)? > > I think we want the lockdep annotations before these go in. I'll > review Colin's new series later today. Just to make sure the merge order is clear, the two patches I posted yesterday to reintroduce the lockdep warning in try_to_freeze() (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/3/488) need to be merged first, then I will repost this series on top of that one. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Saturday, May 04, 2013 03:23:30 PM Colin Cross wrote: > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > > Hello, Rafael. > > > > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > >>> Heh, so you are aware of the deadlock possibilities. Good selection > >>> of spots. For all the conversion patches. > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > >> > >> I wonder if that includes [3/10] (just to get the record straight)? > > > > I think we want the lockdep annotations before these go in. I'll > > review Colin's new series later today. > > Just to make sure the merge order is clear, the two patches I posted > yesterday to reintroduce the lockdep warning in try_to_freeze() > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/3/488) need to be merged first, then I > will repost this series on top of that one. OK, thanks for the clarification. Rafael
diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c index 2db702d..2bcac57 100644 --- a/net/unix/af_unix.c +++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c @@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ #include <linux/mount.h> #include <net/checksum.h> #include <linux/security.h> +#include <linux/freezer.h> struct hlist_head unix_socket_table[2 * UNIX_HASH_SIZE]; EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unix_socket_table); @@ -1880,7 +1881,7 @@ static long unix_stream_data_wait(struct sock *sk, long timeo) set_bit(SOCK_ASYNC_WAITDATA, &sk->sk_socket->flags); unix_state_unlock(sk); - timeo = schedule_timeout(timeo); + timeo = freezable_schedule_timeout(timeo); unix_state_lock(sk); clear_bit(SOCK_ASYNC_WAITDATA, &sk->sk_socket->flags); }
Avoid waking up every thread sleeping in read call on an AF_UNIX socket during suspend and resume by calling a freezable blocking call. Previous patches modified the freezer to avoid sending wakeups to threads that are blocked in freezable blocking calls. This call was selected to be converted to a freezable call because it doesn't hold any locks or release any resources when interrupted that might be needed by another freezing task or a kernel driver during suspend, and is a common site where idle userspace tasks are blocked. Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com> --- net/unix/af_unix.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)