Re: [PATCH 2/2] fs: Make write(2) interruptible by a signal

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 05:15:24PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> Currently write(2) to a file is not interruptible by a signal. Sometimes this
> is desirable (e.g. when you want to quickly kill a process hogging your disk or
> when some process gets blocked in balance_dirty_pages() indefinitely due to a
> filesystem being in an error condition).
> 
> Reported-by: Kazuya Mio <k-mio@sx.jp.nec.com>
> Tested-by: Kazuya Mio <k-mio@sx.jp.nec.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> ---
>  mm/filemap.c |   11 +++++++++--
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index c0018f2..166b30e 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -2407,7 +2407,6 @@ static ssize_t generic_perform_write(struct file *file,
>  						iov_iter_count(i));
>  
>  again:
> -
>  		/*
>  		 * Bring in the user page that we will copy from _first_.
>  		 * Otherwise there's a nasty deadlock on copying from the
> @@ -2463,7 +2462,15 @@ again:
>  		written += copied;
>  
>  		balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(mapping);
> -
> +		/*
> +		 * We check the signal independently of balance_dirty_pages()
> +		 * because we need not wait and check for signal there although
> +		 * this loop could have taken significant amount of time...
> +		 */
> +		if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> +			status = -EINTR;
> +			break;
> +		}

Hmm.  If we need to check again every time adding the return value to
balance_dirty_pages is rather pointless.

I have a bit of a problem parsing the comment - does it try to say that
we might spend too much time after the fatal_signal_pending in the
balance_dirty_pages code so that we have to check it again?  Why not
repeat the check at the end of balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited and thus
avoid having to duplicate the thing in all callers?