From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751258AbaEXMeP (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 May 2014 08:34:15 -0400 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143]:47834 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750751AbaEXMeO (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 May 2014 08:34:14 -0400 Message-ID: <538091C2.6040802@nod.at> Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 14:34:10 +0200 From: Richard Weinberger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" CC: Lennart Sorensen , Jos Huisken , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: inotify, new idea? References: <20140417212834.GC17769@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <5354DA0B.2060204@nod.at> <53804FC0.1010207@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <53804FC0.1010207@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 24.05.2014 09:52, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages): > On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk: >>>> Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify? >>>> Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because >>>> mkdir() raced against the thread which installes the new watches. >>> >>> As I understand it, you have to program to deal with the races (rescan >>> directories after adding watches). I recently did a lot of work >>> updating the inotify(7) man page to discuss all the issues that I know >>> of, and their remedies. If I missed anything, I'd appreciate a note on >>> it, so that it can be added. See >>> http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/inotify.7.html#NOTES >> >> I'm aware of the rescan hack, but in my case it does not help >> because my program must not miss any event. >> Currently I'm using a fuse overlay filesystem to log everything. >> Not perfect but works... :-) > > Richard, > > A late follow up question. How does your application deal with the > event overflow problem (i.e., when you get a large number of events > much faster than your application can deal with them? The downside of the FUSE approach is that you have to intercept every filesystem function. This can be a performance issue. But due to this design the overflow problem cannot happen as the FUSE filesystem blocks until the event has been proceed. Thanks, //richard