From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
oleg@redhat.com, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
shuah@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, miklos@szeredi.hu, x86@kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
tkjos@android.com, arnd@arndb.de, jannh@google.com,
linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
ldv@altlinux.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
fweimer@redhat.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 19:59:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190521195928.GB6738@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521192009.GK17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 08:20:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:30:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> > If we can live with close_from(int first) rather than close_range(), then this
> > can perhaps be done a lot more efficiently by:
> >
> > new = alloc_fdtable(first);
> > spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > old = files_fdtable(files);
> > copy_fds(new, old, 0, first - 1);
> > rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, new);
> > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > clear_fds(old, 0, first - 1);
> > close_fdt_from(old, first);
> > kfree_rcu(old);
>
> I really hate to think how that would interact with POSIX locks...
POSIX locks store current->files in fl_owner; David's resizing the
underlying files->fdt, just like growing from 64 to 256 fds.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, jannh@google.com, fweimer@redhat.com,
oleg@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de, shuah@kernel.org,
tkjos@android.com, ldv@altlinux.org, miklos@szeredi.hu,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:59:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190521195928.GB6738@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521192009.GK17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 08:20:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:30:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> > If we can live with close_from(int first) rather than close_range(), then this
> > can perhaps be done a lot more efficiently by:
> >
> > new = alloc_fdtable(first);
> > spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > old = files_fdtable(files);
> > copy_fds(new, old, 0, first - 1);
> > rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, new);
> > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > clear_fds(old, 0, first - 1);
> > close_fdt_from(old, first);
> > kfree_rcu(old);
>
> I really hate to think how that would interact with POSIX locks...
POSIX locks store current->files in fl_owner; David's resizing the
underlying files->fdt, just like growing from 64 to 256 fds.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
oleg@redhat.com, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
shuah@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, miklos@szeredi.hu, x86@kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
tkjos@android.com, arnd@arndb.de, jannh@google.com,
linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
ldv@altlinux.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
fweimer@redhat.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:59:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190521195928.GB6738@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521192009.GK17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 08:20:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:30:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> > If we can live with close_from(int first) rather than close_range(), then this
> > can perhaps be done a lot more efficiently by:
> >
> > new = alloc_fdtable(first);
> > spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > old = files_fdtable(files);
> > copy_fds(new, old, 0, first - 1);
> > rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, new);
> > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > clear_fds(old, 0, first - 1);
> > close_fdt_from(old, first);
> > kfree_rcu(old);
>
> I really hate to think how that would interact with POSIX locks...
POSIX locks store current->files in fl_owner; David's resizing the
underlying files->fdt, just like growing from 64 to 256 fds.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: willy at infradead.org (Matthew Wilcox)
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:59:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190521195928.GB6738@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521192009.GK17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 08:20:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:30:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> > If we can live with close_from(int first) rather than close_range(), then this
> > can perhaps be done a lot more efficiently by:
> >
> > new = alloc_fdtable(first);
> > spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > old = files_fdtable(files);
> > copy_fds(new, old, 0, first - 1);
> > rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, new);
> > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > clear_fds(old, 0, first - 1);
> > close_fdt_from(old, first);
> > kfree_rcu(old);
>
> I really hate to think how that would interact with POSIX locks...
POSIX locks store current->files in fl_owner; David's resizing the
underlying files->fdt, just like growing from 64 to 256 fds.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: willy@infradead.org (Matthew Wilcox)
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:59:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190521195928.GB6738@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190521195928.17wfEzI_i6_C80lUR2JBDrqC80IC-aO2ULre8_hzxDI@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521192009.GK17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, May 21, 2019@08:20:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019@05:30:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> > If we can live with close_from(int first) rather than close_range(), then this
> > can perhaps be done a lot more efficiently by:
> >
> > new = alloc_fdtable(first);
> > spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > old = files_fdtable(files);
> > copy_fds(new, old, 0, first - 1);
> > rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, new);
> > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > clear_fds(old, 0, first - 1);
> > close_fdt_from(old, first);
> > kfree_rcu(old);
>
> I really hate to think how that would interact with POSIX locks...
POSIX locks store current->files in fl_owner; David's resizing the
underlying files->fdt, just like growing from 64 to 256 fds.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
oleg@redhat.com, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
shuah@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, miklos@szeredi.hu, x86@kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
tkjos@android.com, arnd@arndb.de, jannh@google.com,
linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
ldv@altlinux.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
fweimer@redhat.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:59:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190521195928.GB6738@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521192009.GK17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 08:20:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:30:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> > If we can live with close_from(int first) rather than close_range(), then this
> > can perhaps be done a lot more efficiently by:
> >
> > new = alloc_fdtable(first);
> > spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> > old = files_fdtable(files);
> > copy_fds(new, old, 0, first - 1);
> > rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, new);
> > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > clear_fds(old, 0, first - 1);
> > close_fdt_from(old, first);
> > kfree_rcu(old);
>
> I really hate to think how that would interact with POSIX locks...
POSIX locks store current->files in fl_owner; David's resizing the
underlying files->fdt, just like growing from 64 to 256 fds.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-21 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 102+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-21 11:34 [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range() Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` christian
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] tests: add close_range() tests Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` christian
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 12:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range() Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` fweimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:04 ` christian
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:10 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:10 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:10 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:10 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:10 ` fweimer
2019-05-21 13:10 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:18 ` christian
2019-05-21 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:23 ` christian
2019-05-21 13:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:07 ` Marc Gonzalez
2019-05-21 13:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:39 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-05-21 15:00 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 15:00 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 15:00 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 15:00 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 15:00 ` viro
2019-05-21 15:00 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 16:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:53 ` christian
2019-05-21 16:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:30 ` David Howells
2019-05-21 16:30 ` David Howells
2019-05-21 16:30 ` David Howells
2019-05-21 16:30 ` David Howells
2019-05-21 16:30 ` dhowells
2019-05-21 16:30 ` David Howells
2019-05-21 16:41 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:41 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:41 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:41 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:41 ` christian
2019-05-21 16:41 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` christian
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 19:20 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 19:20 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 19:20 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 19:20 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 19:20 ` viro
2019-05-21 19:20 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 19:59 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2019-05-21 19:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-21 19:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-21 19:59 ` willy
2019-05-21 19:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-21 19:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-24 20:32 ` Michael Tirado
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190521195928.GB6738@bombadil.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=ldv@altlinux.org \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tkjos@android.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.