On 2024/6/21 05:40, Bernd Schubert wrote: > > > On 6/20/24 08:43, Haifeng Xu wrote: >> >> >> On 2024/6/17 15:25, Christian Brauner wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 12:01:39PM GMT, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 12:44, Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So why the client doesn't get woken up? >>>> >>>> Need to find out what the server (lxcfs) is doing. Can you do a >>>> strace of lxcfs to see the communication on the fuse device? >>> >>> Fwiw, I'm one of the orignal authors and maintainers of LXCFS so if you >>> have specific questions, I may be able to help. >> >> Thanks. All server threads of lcxfs wokrs fine now. >> >> So can we add another interface to abort those dead request? >> If the client thread got killed and wait for relpy, but the fuse sever didn't >> send reply for some unknown reason，we can use this interface to wakeup the client thread. > > Isn't that a manual workaround? I.e. an admin or a script needs to trigger it? Yes. > > There is a discussion in this thread to add request timeouts > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_linux-2Dkernel_20240605153552.GB21567-40localhost.localdomain_T_&d=DwIDaQ&c=R1GFtfTqKXCFH-lgEPXWwic6stQkW4U7uVq33mt-crw&r=3uoFsejk1jN2oga47MZfph01lLGODc93n4Zqe7b0NRk&m=8O09nPSMPRZHOnfDnsm3lTwcO7AV93meeZP-F_k_u8w7XO04ISrP36bbcoEMUSrW&s=FRDpgmP8jGWJnoZna3OrFnvx44cCgywsGOeMY3fCeFc&e= > I guess for interrupted requests that would be definitely a case where timeouts could be > applied? Yes. If the requset can be cancelled until the timeout elapsed, we don't need to abort the dead requests manually. Thanks! > > > Thanks, > Bernd
