[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090608185041.GN8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:50:41 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
hugh@...itas.com, tj@...nel.org, adobriyan@...il.com,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, gregkh@...e.de, npiggin@...e.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/23] File descriptor hot-unplug support v2
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 11:01:51AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > Welcome to reality...
> >
> > * bread() is non-interruptible
> > * so's copy_from_user()/copy_to_user()
> > * IO we are stuck upon _might_ be interruptible, but by sending a signal
> > to some other process
>
> We can probably improve on these, though.
>
> Like the copy_to/from_user thing. We might well be able to do that whole
> "if it's a fatal signal, return early" thing.
>
> So in the _general_ case - no, we probably can't fix things. But we could
> likely at least improve in some common cases if we cared.
Sure, even though I'm not at all certain that copy_from_user() is that easy.
We can make locking current->mm in there interruptible, all right, but that's
only a part of the answer - even aside of the allocations, we'd need vma
->fault() interruptible as well, which leads to interruptible instances of
->readpage(), with all the fun _that_ would be.
--
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