Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] freezer: add new freezable helpers usingfreezer_do_not_count()

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 06:35:01PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
> To allow tasks to avoid running on every suspend/resume cycle,
> this patch adds additional freezable wrappers around blocking calls
> that call freezer_do_not_count().  Combined with the previous patch,
> these tasks will not run during suspend or resume unless they wake
> up for another reason, in which case they will run until they hit
> the try_to_freeze() in freezer_count(), and then continue processing
> the wakeup after tasks are thawed.  This patch also converts the
> existing wait_event_freezable* wrappers to use freezer_do_not_count().

I'd much prefer the latter part being a separate patch because the
change isn't really trivial and it isn't exactly equivalent - before
we prioritized meeting the condition over freezing, now it's the other
way around.  It's fine but does deserve description in the log so that
if something gets tracked down to the commit, it's easy to tell how
the behavior flipped and why.

> +/* Like schedule_timeout(), but should not block the freezer. */
> +#define freezable_schedule_timeout(timeout)				\
> +({									\
> +	long __retval;							\
> +	freezer_do_not_count();						\
> +	__retval = schedule_timeout(timeout);				\
> +	freezer_count();						\
> +	__retval;							\
> +})
> +
> +/* Like schedule_timeout_interruptible(), but should not block the freezer. */
> +#define freezable_schedule_timeout_interruptible(timeout)		\
> +({									\
> +	long __retval;							\
> +	freezer_do_not_count();						\
> +	__retval = schedule_timeout_interruptible(timeout);		\
> +	freezer_count();						\
> +	__retval;							\
> +})
...
> +/* Like schedule_hrtimeout_range(), but should not block the freezer. */
> +#define freezable_schedule_hrtimeout_range(expires, delta, mode)	\
> +({									\
> +	int __retval;							\
> +	freezer_do_not_count();						\
> +	__retval = schedule_hrtimeout_range(expires, delta, mode);	\
> +	freezer_count();						\
> +	__retval;							\
> +})

(cc'ing Jeff Layton)

So, one worry that I have about this is that freezer essentially
behaves like a huge lock that everyone grabs and while scattering
try_to_freeze() calls around might seem innocuous, it effectively
adding a dependency to that single giant lock to that place, so
whenever you're adding try_to_freeze() call while holding any kind of
locks, it substiantially increases the chance of possible deadlock
scenarios.  NFS recently got bitten by it and now is trying to get rid
of them as it's fundamentally broken.

So, the freezable interface can't be something that people can use
casually.  It is something which should be carefully and strategically
deployed where we *know* that lock dependency risks don't exist or at
least are acceptable.  I'm a bit weary that this patch is expanding
the interface a lot that they now look like the equivalents of normal
schedule calls.  Not exactly sure what to do here but can we please at
least have RED BOLD BLINKING comments which scream to people not to
use these unless they know what they're doing?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/