All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: replace f_ops->get_poll_head with a static ->f_poll_head pointer
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 23:20:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180628222016.GL30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180628213027.GK30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:30:27PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> I'm not saying that blocking on other things is a bug; some of such *are* bogus,
> but a lot aren't really broken.  What I said is that in a lot of cases we really
> have hard "no blocking other than in callback" (and on subsequent passes there's
> no callback at all).  Which is just about perfect for AIO purposes, so *IF* we
> go for "new method just for AIO, those who don't have it can take a hike", we might
> as well indicate that "can take a hike" in some way (be it opt-in or opt-out) and
> use straight unchanged ->poll(), with alternative callback.

PS: one way of doing that would be to steal a flag from pt->_key and have ->poll()
instances do an equivalent of
        if (flags & LOOKUP_RCU)
                return -ECHILD;
we have in a lot of ->d_revalidate() instances for "need to block" case.  Only
here they would've returned EPOLLNVAL.

Most of the ->poll() instances wouldn't care at all - they do not block unless
the callback does (and in this case it wouldn't have).  Normal poll(2)/select(2)
are completely unaffected.  And AIO would just have that bit set in its
poll_table_struct.

The rules for drivers change only in one respect - if your ->poll() is going to
need to block, check poll_requested_events(pt) & EPOLL_ATOMIC and return EPOLLNVAL
in such case.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: replace f_ops->get_poll_head with a static ->f_poll_head pointer
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 23:20:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180628222016.GL30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180628213027.GK30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1371 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:30:27PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> I'm not saying that blocking on other things is a bug; some of such *are* bogus,
> but a lot aren't really broken.  What I said is that in a lot of cases we really
> have hard "no blocking other than in callback" (and on subsequent passes there's
> no callback at all).  Which is just about perfect for AIO purposes, so *IF* we
> go for "new method just for AIO, those who don't have it can take a hike", we might
> as well indicate that "can take a hike" in some way (be it opt-in or opt-out) and
> use straight unchanged ->poll(), with alternative callback.

PS: one way of doing that would be to steal a flag from pt->_key and have ->poll()
instances do an equivalent of
        if (flags & LOOKUP_RCU)
                return -ECHILD;
we have in a lot of ->d_revalidate() instances for "need to block" case.  Only
here they would've returned EPOLLNVAL.

Most of the ->poll() instances wouldn't care at all - they do not block unless
the callback does (and in this case it wouldn't have).  Normal poll(2)/select(2)
are completely unaffected.  And AIO would just have that bit set in its
poll_table_struct.

The rules for drivers change only in one respect - if your ->poll() is going to
need to block, check poll_requested_events(pt) & EPOLL_ATOMIC and return EPOLLNVAL
in such case.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-06-28 22:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-28 14:20 [RFC] replace ->get_poll_head with a waitqueue pointer in struct file Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20 ` [PATCH 1/6] net: remove sock_poll_busy_flag Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20   ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20 ` [PATCH 2/6] net: remove bogus RCU annotations on socket.wq Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20   ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20 ` [PATCH 3/6] net: don't detour through struct to find the poll head Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20   ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20 ` [PATCH 4/6] net: remove busy polling from sock_get_poll_head Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20   ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20 ` [PATCH 5/6] net: remove sock_poll_busy_loop Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20   ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20 ` [PATCH 6/6] fs: replace f_ops->get_poll_head with a static ->f_poll_head pointer Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 14:20   ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28 16:40   ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 16:40     ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 18:17     ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 18:17       ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 19:31       ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 19:31         ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 20:28         ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 20:28           ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 20:37           ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 20:37             ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 21:16             ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 21:16               ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 21:11           ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 21:11             ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 21:30             ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 21:30               ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 21:39               ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 21:39                 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 22:20               ` Al Viro [this message]
2018-06-28 22:20                 ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 22:35                 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 22:35                   ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 22:49                   ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 22:49                     ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 22:55                     ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 22:55                       ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-28 23:37                       ` Al Viro
2018-06-28 23:37                         ` Al Viro
2018-06-29  0:13                         ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-29  0:13                           ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-29 13:29               ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-29 13:29                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-29 13:40                 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-29 13:40                   ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-29 13:28             ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-29 13:28               ` Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180628222016.GL30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@01.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.