[net] af_unix: revert "af_unix: use freezable blocking calls in read"

Commit 2b15af6f95 ("af_unix: use freezable blocking calls in read")
converts schedule_timeout() to its freezable version, it was probably
correct at that time, but later, commit 2b514574f7e8
("net: af_unix: implement splice for stream af_unix sockets") breaks
the strong requirement for a freezable sleep, according to
commit 0f9548ca1091:

    We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.  Holding a lock can cause a
    deadlock if the lock is later acquired in the suspend or hibernate path
    (e.g.  by dpm).  Holding a lock can also cause a deadlock in the case of
    cgroup_freezer if a lock is held inside a frozen cgroup that is later
    acquired by a process outside that group.

The pipe_lock is still held at that point. So just revert commit 2b15af6f95.

Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
---
 net/unix/af_unix.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> Commit 2b15af6f95 ("af_unix: use freezable blocking calls in read")
> converts schedule_timeout() to its freezable version, it was probably
> correct at that time, but later, commit 2b514574f7e8
> ("net: af_unix: implement splice for stream af_unix sockets") breaks
> the strong requirement for a freezable sleep, according to
> commit 0f9548ca1091:
>
>     We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.  Holding a lock can cause a
>     deadlock if the lock is later acquired in the suspend or hibernate path
>     (e.g.  by dpm).  Holding a lock can also cause a deadlock in the case of
>     cgroup_freezer if a lock is held inside a frozen cgroup that is later
>     acquired by a process outside that group.
>
> The pipe_lock is still held at that point. So just revert commit 2b15af6f95.

On my phone 77 threads are blocked in unix_stream_recvmsg.  A simple
revert of this patch will cause every one of those threads to wake up
twice per suspend cycle, which can be multiple times a second.  How
about adding a freezable flag to unix_stream_read_state so
unix_stream_recvmsg can stay freezable, and unix_stream_splice_read
can be unfreezable?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Colin Cross <ccross@android.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Commit 2b15af6f95 ("af_unix: use freezable blocking calls in read")
>> converts schedule_timeout() to its freezable version, it was probably
>> correct at that time, but later, commit 2b514574f7e8
>> ("net: af_unix: implement splice for stream af_unix sockets") breaks
>> the strong requirement for a freezable sleep, according to
>> commit 0f9548ca1091:
>>
>>     We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.  Holding a lock can cause a
>>     deadlock if the lock is later acquired in the suspend or hibernate path
>>     (e.g.  by dpm).  Holding a lock can also cause a deadlock in the case of
>>     cgroup_freezer if a lock is held inside a frozen cgroup that is later
>>     acquired by a process outside that group.
>>
>> The pipe_lock is still held at that point. So just revert commit 2b15af6f95.
>
> On my phone 77 threads are blocked in unix_stream_recvmsg.  A simple
> revert of this patch will cause every one of those threads to wake up
> twice per suspend cycle, which can be multiple times a second.  How
> about adding a freezable flag to unix_stream_read_state so
> unix_stream_recvmsg can stay freezable, and unix_stream_splice_read
> can be unfreezable?

Fair enough, I didn't know it could have such an impact.
I will send v2.

Thanks.