From: Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@mobileactivedefense.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:02:33 +0000
> Rainer Weikusat <r...@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> Insofar I understand the comment in this code block correctly,
>>
>> err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock);
>> if (unlikely(err)) {
>> /* recvmsg() in non blocking mode is supposed to return
>> -EAGAIN
>> * sk_rcvtimeo is not honored by mutex_lock_interruptible()
>> */
>> err = noblock ? -EAGAIN : -ERESTARTSYS;
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> setting a receive timeout for an AF_UNIX datagram socket also doesn't
>> work as intended because of this: In case of n readers with the same
>> timeout, the nth reader will end up blocking n times the timeout.
>
> Test program which confirms this. It starts four concurrent reads on the
> same socket with a receive timeout of 3s. This means the whole program
> should take a little more than 3s to execute as each read should time
> out at about the same time. But it takes 12s instead as the reads
> pile up on the readlock mutex and each then gets its own timeout once it
> could enter the receive loop.
I'm fine with your changes.
So with your patch, the "N * timeout" behavior, where N is the number
of queues reading threads, no longer occurs? Do they all now properly
get released at the appropriate timeout?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
