On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:54:04PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 07:37:33PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote: > > Some testing I've done today indicates that the original commit broke > > AIO with regard to users that overflow the maximum number of request > > per IO context (where -EAGAIN is returned). > > > > In fact, it did worse - the attached C program can easily overrun the > > ring buffer that is responsible for managing the completed requests, > > and caused notification about their completion never to be returned. > > Argh, that would be a problem. > > ... > > This reverts commit b34e0e1319b31202eb142dcd9688cf7145a30bf6. > > Reverting isn't okay, as that reintroduces another regression. We need > to come up with a fix for this issue that doesn't reintroduce the other > regression for events reaped in user space. Let me have a look and see > what I can come up with...
About the original regression you mention, is there a program you can indicate that reproduces it? On my setups, the regression testing in libaio was not able to detect the current regression too. -- Dan Aloni -- 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/
