On 11/28/24 12:09, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > [You don't often get email from senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > On (24/11/28 12:00), Bernd Schubert wrote: >> On 11/28/24 11:44, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: >>> Hi Joanne, >>> >>> On (24/11/14 11:13), Joanne Koong wrote: >>>> There are situations where fuse servers can become unresponsive or >>>> stuck, for example if the server is deadlocked. Currently, there's no >>>> good way to detect if a server is stuck and needs to be killed manually. >>>> >>>> This commit adds an option for enforcing a timeout (in minutes) for >>>> requests where if the timeout elapses without the server responding to >>>> the request, the connection will be automatically aborted. >>> >>> Does it make sense to configure timeout in seconds? hung-task watchdog >>> operates in seconds and can be set to anything, e.g. 45 seconds, so it >>> panic the system before fuse timeout has a chance to trigger. >>> >>> Another question is: this will terminate the connection. Does it >>> make sense to run timeout per request and just "abort" individual >>> requests? What I'm currently playing with here on our side is >>> something like this: > > Thanks for the pointers again, Bernd. > >> Miklos had asked for to abort the connection in v4 >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJfpegsiRNnJx7OAoH58XRq3zujrcXx94S2JACFdgJJ_b8FdHw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/raw > > OK, sounds reasonable. I'll try to give the series some testing in the > coming days. > > // I still would probably prefer "seconds" timeout granularity. > // Unless this also has been discussed already and Bernd has a link ;) The issue is that is currently iterating through 256 hash lists + pending + bg. https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJnrk1b7bfAWWq_pFP=4XH3ddc_9GtAM2mE7EgWnx2Od+UUUjQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/raw Personally I would prefer a second list to avoid the check spike and latency https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/9ba4eaf4-b9f0-483f-90e5-9512aded419e@xxxxxxxxxxx/raw What is your opinion about that? I guess android and chromium have an interest low latencies and avoiding cpu spikes? Thanks, Bernd
