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 -- 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/
