On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 1:12 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > --- a/fs/read_write.c > > +++ b/fs/read_write.c > > @@ -332,7 +332,9 @@ loff_t default_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence) > > struct inode *inode = file_inode(file); > > loff_t retval; > > > > - inode_lock(inode); > > + retval = inode_lock_killable(inode); > > That change doesn't seem so obviously fine to me. Why do you think so? And how is this different than the other two. > Either way I'd like to see this split in three patches and some > reasoning why it's safe and some justification why it's wanted... Sure I can split this patch, but before I spend the time, I'd like us first to agree that the patch is useful. I wrote this while debugging lots of netfs/nfs/ceph bugs; even without these bugs, I/O operations on netfs can take a looong time (if the server is slow) and the inode is locked during the whole operation. That can cause lots of other processes to go stuck, and my patch allows these operations to be canceled. Without this, the processes not only remain stuck until the inode is unlocked, but all stuck processes have to finish all their I/O before anything can continue. I'd like to be able to "kill -9" stuck processes. A similar NFS-specific patch I wrote was merged last year: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=38a125b31504f91bf6fdd3cfc3a3e9a721e6c97a The same patch for Ceph was never merged (but not explicitly rejected): https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241206165014.165614-1-max.kellermann@xxxxxxxxx/ Prior to my work, several NFS operations were already killable.
