lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)
Date
Hi, Milosz,

I CC'd Michael Kerrisk, in case he has any opinions on the matter.

Milosz Tanski <milosz@adfin.com> writes:

> This patcheset introduces an ability to perform a non-blocking read from
> regular files in buffered IO mode. This works by only for those filesystems
> that have data in the page cache.
>
> It does this by introducing new syscalls new syscalls readv2/writev2 and
> preadv2/pwritev2. These new syscalls behave like the network sendmsg, recvmsg
> syscalls that accept an extra flag argument (O_NONBLOCK).

I thought you were going to introduce a new flag instead of using
O_NONBLOCK for this. I dug up an old email that suggested that enabling
O_NONBLOCK for regular files (well, a device node in this case) broke a
cd ripping or burning application. I also found this old bugzilla,
which states that squid would fail to start, and that gqview was also
broken:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=136057

More generally, do you expect the open(2) of a regular file with
O_NONBLOCK to perform the same way as a pipe, fifo, or device (namely,
that the open itself won't block)? Should O_NONBLOCK affect writes to
regular files? What do you think the return value from poll and friends
should be when a file is opened in this manner (probably not important,
as poll always returns data ready on regular files)? Also consider
whether you want the O_NONBLOCK behaviour for mandatory file locks in
your use case (or any other, for that matter). If you issue a read and
it returns -EAGAIN, should it be up to the application to kick off I/O
to ensure it makes progress?

I don't think O_NONBLOCK is the right flag. What you're really
specifying is a flag that prevents I/O in the read path, and nowhere
else. As such, I'd feel much better about this if we defined a new flag
(O_NONBLOCK_READ maybe? No, that's too verbose.).

In summary, I like the idea, but I worry about overloading O_NONBLOCK.

Cheers,
Jeff


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-16 00:21    [W:0.506 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site