Re: [REPORT] syscall reboot + umh + firmware fallback

From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
	adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, joel@joelfernandes.org, sashal@kernel.org,
	daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk,
	duyuyang@gmail.com, johannes.berg@intel.com, willy@infradead.org,
	david@fromorbit.com, amir73il@gmail.com,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kernel-team@lge.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org,
	minchan@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com,
	sj@kernel.org, jglisse@redhat.com, dennis@kernel.org,
	cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
	vbabka@suse.cz, ngupta@vflare.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	paolo.valente@linaro.org, josef@toxicpanda.com,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	jack@suse.cz, jack@suse.com, jlayton@kernel.org,
	dan.j.williams@intel.com, hch@infradead.org, djwong@kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, rodrigosiqueiramelo@gmail.com,
	melissa.srw@gmail.com, hamohammed.sa@gmail.com,
	42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, holt@sgi.com
Subject: Re: [REPORT] syscall reboot + umh + firmware fallback
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 10:10:45 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220523011045.GA16721@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yn0SHhnhB8fyd0jq@mit.edu>

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 09:56:46AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 08:18:24PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > I have a question about this one. Yes, it would never been stuck thanks
> > to timeout. However, IIUC, timeouts are not supposed to expire in normal
> > cases. So I thought a timeout expiration means not a normal case so need
> > to inform it in terms of dependency so as to prevent further expiraton.
> > That's why I have been trying to track even timeout'ed APIs.
> 
> As I beleive I've already pointed out to you previously in ext4 and
> ocfs2, the jbd2 timeout every five seconds happens **all** the time
> while the file system is mounted.  Commits more frequently than five
> seconds is the exception case, at least for desktops/laptop workloads.

Thanks, Ted. It's easy to stop tracking APIs with timeout. I've been
just afraid that the cases that we want to suppress anyway will be
skipped.

However, I should stop it if it produces too many false alarms.

> We *don't* get to the timeout only when a userspace process calls
> fsync(2), or if the journal was incorrectly sized by the system
> administrator so that it's too small, and the workload has so many
> file system mutations that we have to prematurely close the
> transaction ahead of the 5 second timeout.

Yeah... It's how journaling works. Thanks.

> > Do you think DEPT shouldn't track timeout APIs? If I was wrong, I
> > shouldn't track the timeout APIs any more.
> 
> DEPT tracking timeouts will cause false positives in at least some
> cases.  At the very least, there needs to be an easy way to suppress
> these false positives on a per wait/mutex/spinlock basis.

The easy way is to stop tracking those that are along with timeout until
DEPT starts to consider waits/events by timeout functionality itself.

Thanks.

	Byungchul
> 
>       	       	    	     	      	   	 - Ted