Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:40:52 +0000 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection |
| |
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:27:32 -0600 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 01:43:21PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > We currently attempt to return -EDEALK to blocking fcntl() file locking > > requests that would create a cycle in the graph of tasks waiting on > > locks. > > > > This is inefficient: in the general case it requires us determining > > whether we're adding a cycle to an arbitrary directed acyclic graph. > > And this calculation has to be performed while holding a lock (currently > > the BKL) that prevents that graph from changing. > > > > It has historically been a source of bugs; most recently it was noticed > > that it could loop indefinitely while holding the BKL. > > It can also return -EDEADLK spuriously. So yeah, just kill it.
NAK. This is an ABI change. It was also comprehensively rejected before because
- EDEADLK behaviour is ABI - EDEADLK behaviour is required by SuSv3 - We have no idea what applications may rely on this behaviour.
and also SuSv3 is required by LSB
See the thread http://osdir.com/ml/file-systems/2004-06/msg00017.html
so we need to fix the bugs - the lock usage and the looping. At that point it merely becomes a performance concern to those who use it, which is the proper behaviour. If you want a faster non-checking one use flock(), or add another flag that is a Linux "don't check for deadlock"
Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |