Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:06:04 +0000 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection |
| |
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:43:21 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> > > 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 seems unlikely to be useful to applications: > - The difficulty of implementation has kept standards from > requiring it. (E.g. SUSv3 : "Since implementation of full > deadlock detection is not always feasible, the [EDEADLK] error > was made optional.") So portable applications may not be able to > depend on it. > - It only detects deadlocks that involve nothing but local posix > file locks; deadlocks involving network filesystems or other kinds > of locks or resources are missed. > > It therefore seems best to remove deadlock detection. > > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
NAK. This is an ABI change and one that was rejected before when this was last discussed in detail. Moving it out of BKL makes a ton of sense, even adding a "don't check" flag makes a lot of sense. Removing the checking does not.
I'd much rather see
if (flags & FL_NODLCHECK) posix_deadlock_detect(....)
The failure case for removing this feature is obscure and hard to debug application hangs for the afflicted programs - not nice for users at all.
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/
| |