From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E823D13A273 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:22:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706872947; cv=none; b=PcL32tDhvtuLsBUEG2+HdH0dfkOUly5viZJux/SUicbVkMvlqlsfq/6ER1xjVcFhlRgZ8M+I96/0KWpg0qKlyXb9rfSZ897BT98WeLlnglBdhpy4u8IUHcG1LjLxXfAIAZM5jMcr/iearsvuaKhvilZeVA/kd4D/G0kHchGphug= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706872947; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Aag6raK7hvU6x+VLLg0f33CenZ348rXkUJwqgKNZBwM=; h=From:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc:Subject:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Date:Message-ID; b=ePzluRFPrwAHYf97JaOieiv4an3UPjcZLzc6snHzU6j+uKOq0ePyfrk2e9gIRaWgUTWjGw7AE02kQRNPcr3/Hg/H3+kzMCeoFybI5nM9Ohi3ZjToSERlu1RmrA2dyHV3ZcRw2tpnEYJfjr8AVJdxa2g+MmhN+8aFAtllSiRfbNI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=FN/uC2em; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="FN/uC2em" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1706872944; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=phAeAzLfyQ/CrxIFbQUdpYZ4of5jPIIreKqGaxUEUC4=; b=FN/uC2em2u1VcpMJCHSOQ6fYeE/gMI4qdhdcei0+3K30VVBy1TXEkIo3N5n/2cBDTyacbg ksLWBmPW1cWnbt2HSUVN/NM8v72J3603q8PKuw6ijvbxLS71XQiLy09maZsMgeZf66R6wR Ji9lXQr6baCiHUJcBTEwzo8p1pPTmkE= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-607-0nH4mioWNhGzdV6rQVrNLw-1; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 06:22:21 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 0nH4mioWNhGzdV6rQVrNLw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE3329AA2D1; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:22:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (unknown [10.42.28.245]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A27C2590D; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:22:19 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <2701318.1706863882@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <2704767.1706869832@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, Matthew Wilcox , Kent Overstreet , dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Replacing TASK_(UN)INTERRUPTIBLE with regions of uninterruptibility Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2751705.1706872935.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 11:22:15 +0000 Message-ID: <2751706.1706872935@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.8 Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Just making inode_lock() interruptible would break everything. Why? Obviously, you'd need to check the result of the inode_lock(), which I didn't put in my very rough example code, but why would taking the lock at the front of a vfs op like mkdir be a problem? > For overlayfs it doesn't really make sense, but for network fs and > fuse I guess it could be interesting. But overlayfs calls down into other filesystems - and those might be, say, network filesystems that want to be interruptible. David