On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 11:30, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > We have various locks, mutexes, etc., that are taken on entry to
> > > filesystem code, for example, and a bunch of them are taken interruptibly
> > > or killably (or ought to be) - but filesystem code might be called into
> > > from uninterruptible code, such as the memory allocator, fscache, etc..
> >
> > Are you suggesting to make lots more filesystem/vfs/mm sleeps
> > killable? That would present problems with being called from certain
> > contexts.
>
> No, it wouldn't. What I'm suggesting is something like:
>
> overlayfs_mkdir(inode)
> {
> inode_lock(inode); <--- This could be interruptible
Just making inode_lock() interruptible would break everything.
So I assume this is not what you meant, but that we add error handling
to each and every inode_lock() call?
> ...
> begin_task_uninterruptible();
Yes, I understand that this is your suggestion.
For overlayfs it doesn't really make sense, but for network fs and
fuse I guess it could be interesting. I would have thought that
making all fs related sleeping locks interruptible is not something
that would be worth the effort, but maybe you have a very good use
case.
Thanks,
Miklos
