Re: Should close() release locks atomically?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 20:11:34 UTC
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 1:03 PM Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. This is a plain file on ZFS.