From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Brauner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range() Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 10:12:11 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20190521150006.GJ17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20190521113448.20654-1-christian@brauner.io> <28114.1558456227@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20190521164141.rbehqnghiej3gfua@brauner.io> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: David Howells , Al Viro , Linux List Kernel Mailing , linux-fsdevel , Linux API , Jann Horn , Florian Weimer , Oleg Nesterov , Thomas Gleixner , Arnd Bergmann , Shuah Khan , Todd Kjos , "Dmitry V. Levin" , Miklos Szeredi , alpha , Linux ARM , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Parisc List List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:23 PM Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > Yeah, you mentioned this before. I do like being able to specify an > > upper bound to have the ability to place fds strategically after said > > upper bound. > > I suspect that's the case. > > And if somebody really wants to just close everything and uses a large > upper bound, we can - if we really want to - just compare the upper > bound to the file table size, and do an optimized case for that. We do > that upper bound comparison anyway to limit the size of the walk, so > *if* it's a big deal, that case could then do the whole "shrink > fdtable" case too. Makes sense. > > But I don't believe it's worth optimizing for unless somebody really > has a load where that is shown to be a big deal. Just do the silly > and simple loop, and add a cond_resched() in the loop, like > close_files() does for the "we have a _lot_ of files open" case. Ok. I will resend a v1 later with the cond_resched() logic you and Al suggested added. Thanks! Christian