On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:14:14PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 06:31:39PM +0800, Yu Chen wrote:
> > The xfs-buf/dm-1 should be freezed according to
> > commit 8018ec083c72 ("xfs: mark all internal workqueues
> > as freezable"), thus a easier way might be have to revert
> > commit 18f1df4e00ce ("xfs: Make xfsaild freezeable
> > again") for now, after this reverting the xfsaild/dm-1
> > becomes non-freezable again, thus pm does not see this
> > thread - unless we find a graceful way to treat xfsaild/dm-1
> > as 'frozen' if it is waiting for an already 'frozen' task,
> > or if the filesystem freeze is added in.
> >
> > Any comments would be much appreciated.
>
> Reverting 18f1df4e00ce ("xfs: Make xfsaild freezeable again")
> would break the proper form of the kthread for it to be freezable.
> This "form" is not defined formally, and sadly its just a form
> learned throughout years over different kthreads in the kernel.
>
> I'm also not convinced all our hibernation / suspend woes would be fixed by
> reverting this commit, its why I worked instead on formalizing a proper freeze
> / thaw, which a lot of filesystems already implement prior to system
> hibernation / suspend / resume [0].
>
> I'll be respinning this series without the last patch, provided I'm able to
> ensure I don't need the ext[234] hack I did in that thread. Can you test the
> first 3 patches *only* on that series and seeing if that helps on your XFS
> front as well?
>
> [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171003185313.1017-1-mcg...@kernel.org
>
> Luis
Thanks for the comment Luis,
Yes, I agree the freezing of filesystem is a proper/thorough fix for such
kind issues, but as Dan said, it might be a little risky for us to
to deploy it on our products currently, unless it is in the
mainline/stable branch. Although the XFS issue might not be 100% reproducible,
we can help test the patch set while seeking for a lightweight 'fix'.
Thanks,
Yu
