Re: [PATCH] fanotify: to differ file access event from different threads

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:56:43PM +0800, boyd yang wrote:
> This patch fixes a hang problem of Eric Paris's fs Notification/fanotify.
> 
> Fanotify brings a way to intercept file access events.
> When multiple threadsiterate the same direcotry, some thread will hang.
> This patch let fanotify to differ access events from different
> threads, prevent fanotify from merging access events from different
> threads.
> 

You need to run this through checkpatch.pl, you have a ton of formatting
problems.  Also your email client seems to have word-wrapped parts of this, so
use a email client that doesn't word wrap.

> =============================================================
> 
> diff -r -u linux-3.1-rc4_orig/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
> linux-3.1-rc4/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
> --- linux-3.1-rc4_orig/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c	2011-08-29
> 12:16:01.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-3.1-rc4/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c	2011-10-10
> 12:28:23.276847000 +0800
> @@ -15,7 +15,8 @@
> 
>  	if (old->to_tell == new->to_tell &&
>  	    old->data_type == new->data_type &&
> -	    old->tgid == new->tgid) {
> +	    old->tgid == new->tgid &&
> +	    old->pid == new->pid) {
>  		switch (old->data_type) {
>  		case (FSNOTIFY_EVENT_PATH):
>  			if ((old->path.mnt == new->path.mnt) &&
> @@ -144,11 +145,19 @@
>  		return PTR_ERR(notify_event);
> 
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FANOTIFY_ACCESS_PERMISSIONS
> -	if (event->mask & FAN_ALL_PERM_EVENTS) {
> -		/* if we merged we need to wait on the new event */
> -		if (notify_event)
> -			event = notify_event;
> -		ret = fanotify_get_response_from_access(group, event);
> +	//if overflow, do not wait for response
> +	if(fsnotify_isoverflow(event))
> +	{
> +		pr_debug("fanotify overflow!\n");
> +	}
> +	else
> +	{
> +		if (event->mask & FAN_ALL_PERM_EVENTS) {
> +			/* if we merged we need to wait on the new event */
> +			if (notify_event)
> +				event = notify_event;
> +			ret = fanotify_get_response_from_access(group, event);
> +		}
>  	}

The overflow event should only have FS_Q_OVERFLOW set in it's mask right?  So
why is this test needed at all?  Thanks,

Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux