On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 at 02:45, Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think it's fine for these edge cases to slip through since most of > them will be caught eventually by the subsequent timeout handler runs, > but I was more worried about the increased lock contention while > iterating through all hashes of the fpq->processing list. But I think > for that we could just increase the timeout frequency to run less > frequently (eg once every 5 minutes instead of once every minute) Yeah, edge cases shouldn't matter. I think even 1/s frequency wouldn't be too bad, this is just a quick scan of a (hopefully) not too long list. BTW, the cumulative lock contention would be exactly the same with the separate timeout list, I wouldn't worry too much about it. > Alternatively, I also still like the idea of something looser with > just periodically (according to whatever specified timeout) checking > if any requests are being serviced at all when fc->num-waiting is > non-zero. However, this would only protect against fully deadlocked > servers and miss malicious ones or half-deadlocked ones (eg > multithreaded fuse servers where only some threads are deadlocked). I don't have a preference. Whichever is simpler to implement. Thanks, Miklos
