[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140114213044.GD23999@fieldses.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:30:44 -0500
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Richard Hipp <drh@...ite.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Hipp <drh@...ci.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/14] locks: skip deadlock detection on FL_FILE_PVT
locks
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:21:53PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
> SQLite uses only F_SETLK, never F_SETLKW. Doesn't that mean that SQLite
> will work the same with or without deadlock detection? Doesn't deadlock
> detection only come into play with F_SETLKW?
That's correct.
> > >> (Actually, what happens if you receive a signal which waiting on a file
> > lock?)
> > >
> > > Return -EINTR.
> >
>
> Huh. SQLite is not checking for EINTR if fcntl(F_SETLK,...) fails. Should
> it be? Or does EINTR only come up for F_SETLKW?
I don't know--I wonder if a distributed filesystem, for example, might
allow even a non-blocking lock request to be interrupted? Might be
interesting to check what nfs does.
--b.
>
> We do check for EINTR and retry for other system calls (read(), write(),
> fallocate(), ftruncate(), close(), chmod(), open(), maybe others too).
--
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