[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48672ADE.1090300@goop.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:25:34 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
CC: Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ctrl+C doesn't interrupt process waiting for I/O
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Applications should not assume that write() (or other syscalls) can't
> return EINTR. Not all filesystems have a bounded-time backing store.
The distinction between 'fast' (filesystem) and 'slow' (terminals and
pipes) blocking syscalls goes back to the earliest days of Unix, and is
part of the ABI. Most filesystem syscalls are not documented to ever
return EINTR.
> 'soft' has its own problems; namely false positives when someone steps
> on the network cable, temporarily blocking packet flow, or when using
> a clustered server which may take some time to recover from a fault.
Sure. It's the basic problem of trying to make network access
transparent by hiding the failure modes. You either need to put up with
spurious timeouts caused by transient failures, or unbounded blocking on
real failures.
Regardless, NFS is the exception here, and making normal block-backed
filesystems start throwing EINTRs around would be a huge behavioural change.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists