From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
paul@mad-scientist.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.27.24] Kernel coredump to a pipe is failing
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:31:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090527073136.GT846@one.firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090526172935.fad52c49.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 05:29:35PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 02:11:04 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > > I dunno. Is this true of all linux filesystems in all cases? Maybe.
> >
> > Assuming one of them is not would you rather want to fix that file system
> > or 10 zillion user programs (including the kernel core dumper) that
> > get it wrong? @)
> >
>
> I think that removing one bug is better than adding one.
>
> Many filesystems will return a short write if they hit a memory
> allocation failure, for example. pipe_write() sure will. Retrying
> is appropriate in such a case.
Sorry but are you really suggesting every program in the world that uses
write() anywhere should put it into a loop? That seems just like really
bad API design to me, requiring such contortions in a fundamental
system call just to work around kernel deficiencies.
I can just imagine the programmers putting nasty comments
about the Linux kernel on top of those loops and they would
be fully deserved.
And the same applies to in-kernel users really.
The memory allocation case more sounds like a bug in these fs and
in pipe.
e.g. the network stack sleeps waiting for memory, perhaps these
file systems should too.
Or it should just always return -ENOMEM. Typically when the
system is badly out of memory you're gonna lose anyways because
a lot of things start failing.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-27 7:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-26 16:33 [2.6.27.24] Kernel coredump to a pipe is failing Paul Smith
2009-05-26 18:01 ` Paul Smith
2009-05-26 20:31 ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-26 21:09 ` Paul Smith
2009-05-26 23:00 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-26 23:14 ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-26 23:28 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-26 23:41 ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-26 23:45 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-27 0:11 ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-27 0:29 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-27 6:02 ` Paul Smith
2009-05-27 6:17 ` Paul Smith
2009-05-27 7:31 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2009-05-27 7:45 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-27 8:52 ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-27 8:56 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-27 20:25 ` Jesper Juhl
2009-05-29 10:34 ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-27 18:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-27 18:50 ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-27 19:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-27 19:49 ` Paul Smith
2009-05-27 20:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-27 20:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-27 20:22 ` Paul Smith
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-22 12:34 Paul Smith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090527073136.GT846@one.firstfloor.org \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@mad-scientist.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox