Re: [RFC][PATCH] mount: In mark_umount_candidates and __propogate_umount visit each mount once

2016-10-13 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrey Vagin writes: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Andrei Vagin wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:53:46PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>> >>> Adrei Vagin pointed out that time to executue propagate_umount can go >>> non-linear (and take a ludicrious amount of time) when the mount >>>

Re: [RFC][PATCH] mount: In mark_umount_candidates and __propogate_umount visit each mount once

2016-10-13 Thread Andrey Vagin
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Andrei Vagin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:53:46PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Adrei Vagin pointed out that time to executue propagate_umount can go >> non-linear (and take a ludicrious amount of time) when the mount >> propogation trees of the moun

Re: [RFC][PATCH] mount: In mark_umount_candidates and __propogate_umount visit each mount once

2016-10-13 Thread Andrei Vagin
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:53:46PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Adrei Vagin pointed out that time to executue propagate_umount can go > non-linear (and take a ludicrious amount of time) when the mount > propogation trees of the mounts to be unmunted by a lazy unmount > overlap. > > Solve t

[RFC][PATCH] mount: In mark_umount_candidates and __propogate_umount visit each mount once

2016-10-13 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Adrei Vagin pointed out that time to executue propagate_umount can go non-linear (and take a ludicrious amount of time) when the mount propogation trees of the mounts to be unmunted by a lazy unmount overlap. Solve this in the most straight forward way possible, by adding a new mount flag to mark