On Tue, 2025-04-01 at 01:32 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 03:51:43PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-03-27 at 10:06 -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > [...]
> > > -static void percpu_rwsem_wait(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem,
> > > bool
> > > reader)
> > > +static void percpu_rwsem_wait(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem,
> > > bool
> > > reader,
> > > + bool freeze)
> > > {
> > > DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wq_entry, percpu_rwsem_wake_function);
> > > bool wait;
> > > @@ -156,7 +157,8 @@ static void percpu_rwsem_wait(struct
> > > percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, bool reader)
> > > spin_unlock_irq(&sem->waiters.lock);
> > >
> > > while (wait) {
> > > - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE |
> > > + freeze ? TASK_FREEZABLE : 0);
> >
> > This is a bit embarrassing, the bug I've been chasing is here: the
> > ?
> > operator is lower in precedence than | meaning this expression
> > always
> > evaluates to TASK_FREEZABLE and nothing else (which is why the
> > process
> > goes into R state and never wakes up).
> >
> > Let me fix that and redo all the testing.
>
> I don't think that's it. I think you're missing making pagefault
> writers such
> as systemd-journald freezable:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index b379a46b5576..528e73f192ac 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1782,7 +1782,8 @@ static inline void __sb_end_write(struct
> super_block *sb, int level)
> static inline void __sb_start_write(struct super_block *sb, int
> level)
> {
> percpu_down_read_freezable(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level - 1,
> - level == SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
> + (level == SB_FREEZE_WRITE ||
> + level == SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT));
> }
Yes, I was about to tell Jan that the condition here simply needs to be
true. All our rwsem levels need to be freezable to avoid a hibernation
failure.
Regards,
James
