On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:23 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yeah, you mentioned this before. I do like being able to specify an
upper bound to have the ability to place fds strategically after said
upper bound.
I suspect that's the case.
And if somebody really wants to just close everything and uses a large
upper bound, we can - if we really want to - just compare the upper
bound to the file table size, and do an optimized case for that. We do
that upper bound comparison anyway to limit the size of the walk, so
*if* it's a big deal, that case could then do the whole "shrink
fdtable" case too.
Makes sense.
But I don't believe it's worth optimizing for unless somebody really
has a load where that is shown to be a big deal. Just do the silly
and simple loop, and add a cond_resched() in the loop, like
close_files() does for the "we have a _lot_ of files open" case.
Ok. I will resend a v1 later with the cond_resched() logic you and Al
suggested added.
Thanks!
Christian
