lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] ns: do not block exit_task_namespaces() for a long time
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 08:16:34PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 05:53:01PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 06:09:24PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > >
> > > On exiting of the last task in a namespace we need to trigger freeing of
> > > the namespace. Currently, we call synchronize_rcu() and free_nsproxy()
> > > directly on do_exit() path.
> > >
> > > On my machine synchronize_rcu() blocks for about 0.01 seconds. For
> > > comparing: normal exit_group() syscall takes less than 0.0003 seconds.
> > >
> > > Let's offload synchronize_rcu() and free_nsproxy() to a workqueue.
> > >
> > > I also move synchronize_rcu() inside free_nsproxy(). It fixes racy
> > > put_nsproxy() which calls free_nsproxy() without synchronize_rcu().
> > > I guess it was missed during switch to RCU (see cf7b708).
> >
> > NAK. Making final umounts of anything in that namespace asynchronous,
> > even though nothing is holding the stuff on them busy is simply
> > wrong. Note that they can take a _long_ time, so we are talking about
> > minutes worth of delay in the worst case. It's user-visible and
> > it's a serious potential for trouble.
>
> Good point.
>
> Now in worst case we have a process which hang for a few minutes in
> exit_group() syscall in D state, right? Why is that any better?
> Does it provide better user experience or better accounting or what?

"Session that was using that USB stick has still not finished exiting;
might be still busy writing stuff there, so better not pull it out yet".


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-16 20:01    [W:0.031 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site