Re: [RFC PATCH] fuse: permit freezing while waiting for request answer

From: Miklos Szeredi

Date: Mon Aug 17 2026 - 13:23:09 EST


On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 at 11:54, Sergey Senozhatsky
<senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Suspend freezes tasks in random order and doesn't take into
> consideration producer-consumer dependency that may exist
> between tasks. One example where this can cause issues is:
> fuse server getting frozen ahead of clients, which then get
> stuck waiting for req answers that never come (the server
> is already frozen):
>
> PM: suspend entry (s2idle)
> Filesystems sync: 0.018 seconds
> Freezing user space processes
> Freezing user space processes failed after 20.001 seconds (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0):
> task:ThreadPoolForeg state:D stack:0 pid:7873 tgid:7854 ppid:7827 flags:0x00004006
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> __schedule+0x554/0x1320
> ? vprintk_emit+0x2a8/0x320
> schedule+0x5e/0xd0
> __fuse_simple_request+0x4c8/0x6d0
> fuse_do_getattr+0x1e9/0x320
> fuse_update_get_attr+0x362/0x6a0
> fuse_file_read_iter+0x13a/0x1b0
> vfs_read+0x29f/0x2f0
> ksys_read+0x75/0xf0
> do_syscall_64+0x70/0xf0
>
> Make all wait-event calls in request_wait_answer() freezer-friendly.
> This uses TASK_FREEZABLE_UNSAFE because often time we freeze holding
> locks (in the upper layers), which triggers debug_locks warning.

If the lock is uncontended, then fine. If something's waiting on such
a lock, then the freezing will still fail. This is unfortunate, but
still better than failing the uncontended case as well. So I don't
see an issue with this.

Thanks,
Miklos