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
