Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)
[Posted September 22, 2014 by corbet]
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>