From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751439AbZHFKXA (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 06:23:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751026AbZHFKW7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 06:22:59 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:39825 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750810AbZHFKW6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 06:22:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:22:52 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Douglas Leeder Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin , Eric Paris , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "malware-list@dmesg.printk.net" , "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" , "greg@kroah.com" , "jcm@redhat.com" , "tytso@mit.edu" , "arjan@infradead.org" , "david@lang.hm" , "jengelh@medozas.de" , "aviro@redhat.com" , "mrkafk@gmail.com" , "alexl@redhat.com" , "a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl" , "hch@infradead.org" , "alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" , "mmorley@hcl.in" Subject: Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches Message-ID: <20090806102252.GG31370@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1248466429.3567.82.camel@localhost> <20090805020534.GB1354@ucw.cz> <200908051746.17903.tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com> <20090806101059.GD31370@elf.ucw.cz> <4A7AAE89.20205@sophos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A7AAE89.20205@sophos.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 2009-08-06 11:20:57, Douglas Leeder wrote: > Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Wed 2009-08-05 17:46:16, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> On Wednesday 05 August 2009 03:05:34 Pavel Machek wrote: > > >> Just to make sure you haven't missed this - it is not that they have to > >> complete the whole operation before the timeout period (since you mention > >> realtime/mlock I suspect this is what you think?), but _during_ the operation > >> they have to show that they are active by sending something like keep alive > >> messages. > >> > >> Or you are worried about failing to meet even that on a loaded system? There > >> has to be something like this otherwise hung userspace client would kill the > >> whole system. > > > > Of course, I'm worried about failing to meet this on loaded > > system. And the fact that I _have_ to worry about that means that > > interface is ugly/broken. > > You mean that in 5 seconds, you won't have any point when you can tell > the kernel, "I'm still working"? Yes. Try make -j on your machine one day. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html