This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2] epoll: Support for disabling items, and a self-testapp.
- From: Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital dot net>
- To: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>
- Cc: mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com, "Paton J. Lewis" <palewis at adobe dot com>, Alexander Viro <viro at zeniv dot linux dot org dot uk>,Jason Baron <jbaron at redhat dot com>, linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, Paul Holland <pholland at adobe dot com>, Davide Libenzi <davidel at xmailserver dot org>,libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Linux API <linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org>, paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:05:11 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] epoll: Support for disabling items, and a self-testapp.
- References: <1345756535-8372-1-git-send-email-palewis@adobe.com> <CAKgNAkg0R2LwfpF8beCkawTfPu7oj_DDaDxf2VJ+xB6UTgRSaw@mail.gmail.com> <20121017163004.fb9de1b3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
[cc Paul McKenney, who is probably the leading expert on these things]
On 10/17/2012 04:30 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:12:57 +0200
> "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Paton J. Lewis <palewis@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> From: "Paton J. Lewis" <palewis@adobe.com>
>>>
>>> Enhanced epoll_ctl to support EPOLL_CTL_DISABLE, which disables an epoll item.
>>> If epoll_ctl doesn't return -EBUSY in this case, it is then safe to delete the
>>> epoll item in a multi-threaded environment. Also added a new test_epoll self-
>>> test app to both demonstrate the need for this feature and test it.
>>
>> (There's a lot of background missing from this version of the patch
>> that was included in the previous version
>> [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1311457]. It helps to
>> include the full rationale with a revised patch--best not to assume
>> that someone has the context of past mails when reading a revised
>> patch.)
>>
>> I've taken a look at this patch as it currently stands in 3.7-rc1, and
>> done a bit of testing. (By the way, the test program
>> tools/testing/selftests/epoll/test_epoll.c does not compile...)
>
> Thanks for this. You raise significant issues. If we can't get these
> fully resolved over the next month or so, we should revert the patch so
> this new API doesn't get released in 3.7. I have queued a patch to do
> this and shall maintain it while I watch developments...
I can't shake the feeling that EPOLL_CTL_DISABLE is solving a
non-problem, or, more precisely, that there should be a perfectly good
userspace solution with no kernel changes.
Unless something is rather buggy in kernel land (and I don't think it
is), once EPOLL_CTL_DEL has returned, no call to epoll_wait that starts
*after* EPOLL_CTL_DEL finishes will return that object. This suggests
an RCU-like approach: once EPOLL_CTL_DEL has returned and every thread
has returned from an epoll_wait call that started after the
EPOLL_CTL_DEL returns, then the data structure can be safely freed.
In pseudocode:
delete(fd, pdata) {
pdata->dead = true;
EPOLL_CTL_DEL(fd);
rcu_call(delete pdata);
}
wait() {
epoll_wait;
for each event pdata {
if (pdata->gone) continue;
process the event;
}
rcu_this_is_a_grace_period();
}
Of course, these are not normal grace periods and would need to be
tracked separately. (The optimal data structure to do this without
killing scalability is not obvious. urcu presumably implements such a
thing.)
Am I right?
--Andy