[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48673DAE.6050905@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:45:50 +0300
From: Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ctrl+C doesn't interrupt process waiting for I/O
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 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.
POSIX documents EINTR for write(), and the manpage on my Linux distro
says the same.
However I don't think introducing EINTR would be beneficial (it will
likely cause applications that don't expect it to break).
>
>> '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.
Agreed.
Best regards,
--Edwin
--
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