|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)

From:  Jeff Moyer <jmoyer-AT-redhat.com>
To:  Milosz Tanski <milosz-AT-adfin.com>
Subject:  Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)
Date:  Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:58:44 -0400
Message-ID:  <x49d2awr1ez.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Cc:  linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org>, linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-aio-AT-kvack.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman-AT-suse.de>, Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke-AT-sernet.de>, Tejun Heo <tj-AT-kernel.org>, michael.kerrisk-AT-gmail.com
Archive‑link:  Article

Hi, Milosz,

I CC'd Michael Kerrisk, in case he has any opinions on the matter.

Milosz Tanski <milosz@adfin.com> writes:

> This patcheset introduces an ability to perform a non-blocking read from 
> regular files in buffered IO mode. This works by only for those filesystems
> that have data in the page cache.
>
> It does this by introducing new syscalls new syscalls readv2/writev2 and
> preadv2/pwritev2. These new syscalls behave like the network sendmsg, recvmsg
> syscalls that accept an extra flag argument (O_NONBLOCK).

I thought you were going to introduce a new flag instead of using
O_NONBLOCK for this.  I dug up an old email that suggested that enabling
O_NONBLOCK for regular files (well, a device node in this case) broke a
cd ripping or burning application.  I also found this old bugzilla,
which states that squid would fail to start, and that gqview was also
broken:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=136057

More generally, do you expect the open(2) of a regular file with
O_NONBLOCK to perform the same way as a pipe, fifo, or device (namely,
that the open itself won't block)?  Should O_NONBLOCK affect writes to
regular files?  What do you think the return value from poll and friends
should be when a file is opened in this manner (probably not important,
as poll always returns data ready on regular files)?  Also consider
whether you want the O_NONBLOCK behaviour for mandatory file locks in
your use case (or any other, for that matter).  If you issue a read and
it returns -EAGAIN, should it be up to the application to kick off I/O
to ensure it makes progress?

I don't think O_NONBLOCK is the right flag.  What you're really
specifying is a flag that prevents I/O in the read path, and nowhere
else.  As such, I'd feel much better about this if we defined a new flag
(O_NONBLOCK_READ maybe?  No, that's too verbose.).

In summary, I like the idea, but I worry about overloading O_NONBLOCK.

Cheers,
Jeff

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux AIO,
see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org">aart@kvack.org</a>




to post comments


Copyright © 2014, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds