On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:27:32 -0600
Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
