lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/23] File descriptor hot-unplug support v2
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> writes:

> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 06:44:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>
>> > I'm still not getting what the problem is. AFAICS file operations are
>> > either
>> >
>> > a) non-interruptible but finish within a short time or
>> > b) may block indefinitely but are interruptible (or at least killable).
>> >
>> > Anything else is already problematic, resulting in processes "stuck in
>> > D state".
>>
>> Welcome to reality...
>>
>> * bread() is non-interruptible
>> * so's copy_from_user()/copy_to_user()
>
> And why should revoke(2) care? Just wait for the damn thing to
> finish. Why exactly do these need to be interruptible?

Agreed. I expect the data size is going to be a page or less. Which
is at most 64K on some weird architectures. I think that counts as a
short time waiting for disk I/O. Baring thrashing.

> Okay, if we want revoke or umount -f to be instantaneous then all that
> needs to be taken care of. But does it *need* to be?

Good question. I wonder what umount -f needs when we yank out a usb drive.

> My idea of revoke is something like below:
>
> - make sure no new operations are started on the file
> - check state of tasks for ongoing operations, if interruptible send signal

Figuring out who to send a signal to is tricky. Still it should be doable
in the common case.

> - wait for all pending operations to finish
> - kill file

Eric


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-09 08:35    [W:0.096 / U:1.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site