Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 23:02:59 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Should close() release locks atomically? Message-ID: <ZJX6c1LcDU97E7z8@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2jjKyj5JNkEXh7_UsEQLkuhpfmybht7gDwQR64BQzAXrQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOtMX2jjKyj5JNkEXh7_UsEQLkuhpfmybht7gDwQR64BQzAXrQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 12:00:36PM -0700, Alan Somers wrote: > The close() syscall automatically releases locks. Should it do so > atomically or is a delay permitted? I can't find anything in our man > pages or the open group specification that says. > > The distinction matters when using O_NONBLOCK. For example: > > fd = open(..., O_DIRECT | O_EXLOCK | O_NONBLOCK); //succeeds > // do some I/O > close(fd); > fd = open(..., O_DIRECT | O_EXLOCK | O_NONBLOCK); //fails with EAGAIN! > > I see this error frequently on a heavily loaded system. It isn't a > typical thread race though; ktrace shows that only one thread tries to > open the file in question. From the ktrace, I can see that the final > open() comes immediately after the close(), with no intervening > syscalls from that thread. It seems that close() doesn't release the > lock right away. I wouldn't notice if I weren't using O_NONBLOCK. > > Should this be considered a bug? If so I could try to come up with a > minimal test case. But it's somewhat academic, since I plan to > refactor the code in a way that will eliminate the duplicate open(). What type of the object is behind fd? O_NONBLOCK affects open itself. We release flock after object close method, but before close(2) returns.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ZJX6c1LcDU97E7z8>