From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> To: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, normalperson@yhbt.net, m@silodev.com, corbet@lwn.net, luto@amacapital.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hagen@jauu.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: add exclusive wakeups flag Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:01:24 +1300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <56E71894.4090607@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <56E711C3.8020008@akamai.com> Hi Jason, On 03/15/2016 08:32 AM, Jason Baron wrote: > > > On 03/14/2016 01:47 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> [Restoring CC, which I see I accidentally dropped, one iteration back.] [...] >>>> values in events yield an error. EPOLLEXCLUSIVE may be >>>> used only in an EPOLL_CTL_ADD operation; attempts to >>>> employ it with EPOLL_CTL_MOD yield an error. If >>>> EPOLLEXCLUSIVE has set using epoll_ctl(2), then a subse‐ >>>> quent EPOLL_CTL_MOD on the same epfd, fd pair yields an >> b>> error. An epoll_ctl(2) that specifies EPOLLEXCLUSIVE in >>>> events and specifies the target file descriptor fd as an >>>> epoll instance will likewise fail. The error in all of >>>> these cases is EINVAL. >>>> >>>> ERRORS >>>> EINVAL An invalid event type was specified along with EPOLLEX‐ >>>> CLUSIVE in events. >>>> >>>> EINVAL op was EPOLL_CTL_MOD and events included EPOLLEXCLUSIVE. >>>> >>>> EINVAL op was EPOLL_CTL_MOD and the EPOLLEXCLUSIVE flag has >>>> previously been applied to this epfd, fd pair. >>>> >>>> EINVAL EPOLLEXCLUSIVE was specified in event and fd is refers >>>> to an epoll instance. >> >> Returning to the second sentence in this description: >> >> When a wakeup event occurs and multiple epoll file descrip‐ >> tors are attached to the same target file using EPOLLEXCLU‐ >> SIVE, one or more of the epoll file descriptors will >> receive an event with epoll_wait(2). >> >> There is a point that is unclear to me: what does "target file" refer to? >> Is it an open file description (aka open file table entry) or an inode? >> I suspect the former, but it was not clear in your original text. >> > > So from epoll's perspective, the wakeups are associated with a 'wait > queue'. So if the open() and subsequent EPOLL_CTL_ADD (which is done via > file->poll()) results in adding to the same 'wait queue' then we will > get 'exclusive' wakeup behavior. > > So in general, I think the answer here is that its associated with the > inode (I coudn't say with 100% certainty without really looking at all > file->poll() implementations). Certainly, with the 'FIFO' example below, > the two scenarios will have the same behavior with respect to > EPOLLEXCLUSIVE. So, in both scenarios, *one or more* processes will get a wakeup? (I'll try to add something to the text to clarify the detail we're discussing.) > Also, the 'non-exclusive' mode would be subject to the same question of > which wait queue is the epfd is associated with... I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make here? Cheers, Michael >> To make this point even clearer, here are two scenarios I'm thinking of. >> In each case, we're talking of monitoring the read end of a FIFO. >> >> === >> >> Scenario 1: >> >> We have three processes each of which >> 1. Creates an epoll instance >> 2. Opens the read end of the FIFO >> 3. Adds the read end of the FIFO to the epoll instance, specifying >> EPOLLEXCLUSIVE >> >> When input becomes available on the FIFO, how many processes >> get a wakeup? >> >> === >> >> Scenario 3 >> >> A parent process opens the read end of a FIFO and then calls >> fork() three times to create three children. Each child then: >> >> 1. Creates an epoll instance >> 2. Adds the read end of the FIFO to the epoll instance, specifying >> EPOLLEXCLUSIVE >> >> When input becomes available on the FIFO, how many processes >> get a wakeup? >> >> === >> >> Cheers, >> >> Michael >> > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> To: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, normalperson@yhbt.net, m@silodev.com, corbet@lwn.net, luto@amacapital.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hagen@jauu.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: add exclusive wakeups flag Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:01:24 +1300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <56E71894.4090607@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <56E711C3.8020008@akamai.com> Hi Jason, On 03/15/2016 08:32 AM, Jason Baron wrote: > > > On 03/14/2016 01:47 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> [Restoring CC, which I see I accidentally dropped, one iteration back.] [...] >>>> values in events yield an error. EPOLLEXCLUSIVE may be >>>> used only in an EPOLL_CTL_ADD operation; attempts to >>>> employ it with EPOLL_CTL_MOD yield an error. If >>>> EPOLLEXCLUSIVE has set using epoll_ctl(2), then a subse‐ >>>> quent EPOLL_CTL_MOD on the same epfd, fd pair yields an >> b>> error. An epoll_ctl(2) that specifies EPOLLEXCLUSIVE in >>>> events and specifies the target file descriptor fd as an >>>> epoll instance will likewise fail. The error in all of >>>> these cases is EINVAL. >>>> >>>> ERRORS >>>> EINVAL An invalid event type was specified along with EPOLLEX‐ >>>> CLUSIVE in events. >>>> >>>> EINVAL op was EPOLL_CTL_MOD and events included EPOLLEXCLUSIVE. >>>> >>>> EINVAL op was EPOLL_CTL_MOD and the EPOLLEXCLUSIVE flag has >>>> previously been applied to this epfd, fd pair. >>>> >>>> EINVAL EPOLLEXCLUSIVE was specified in event and fd is refers >>>> to an epoll instance. >> >> Returning to the second sentence in this description: >> >> When a wakeup event occurs and multiple epoll file descrip‐ >> tors are attached to the same target file using EPOLLEXCLU‐ >> SIVE, one or more of the epoll file descriptors will >> receive an event with epoll_wait(2). >> >> There is a point that is unclear to me: what does "target file" refer to? >> Is it an open file description (aka open file table entry) or an inode? >> I suspect the former, but it was not clear in your original text. >> > > So from epoll's perspective, the wakeups are associated with a 'wait > queue'. So if the open() and subsequent EPOLL_CTL_ADD (which is done via > file->poll()) results in adding to the same 'wait queue' then we will > get 'exclusive' wakeup behavior. > > So in general, I think the answer here is that its associated with the > inode (I coudn't say with 100% certainty without really looking at all > file->poll() implementations). Certainly, with the 'FIFO' example below, > the two scenarios will have the same behavior with respect to > EPOLLEXCLUSIVE. So, in both scenarios, *one or more* processes will get a wakeup? (I'll try to add something to the text to clarify the detail we're discussing.) > Also, the 'non-exclusive' mode would be subject to the same question of > which wait queue is the epfd is associated with... I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make here? Cheers, Michael >> To make this point even clearer, here are two scenarios I'm thinking of. >> In each case, we're talking of monitoring the read end of a FIFO. >> >> === >> >> Scenario 1: >> >> We have three processes each of which >> 1. Creates an epoll instance >> 2. Opens the read end of the FIFO >> 3. Adds the read end of the FIFO to the epoll instance, specifying >> EPOLLEXCLUSIVE >> >> When input becomes available on the FIFO, how many processes >> get a wakeup? >> >> === >> >> Scenario 3 >> >> A parent process opens the read end of a FIFO and then calls >> fork() three times to create three children. Each child then: >> >> 1. Creates an epoll instance >> 2. Adds the read end of the FIFO to the epoll instance, specifying >> EPOLLEXCLUSIVE >> >> When input becomes available on the FIFO, how many processes >> get a wakeup? >> >> === >> >> Cheers, >> >> Michael >> > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-14 20:01 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-12-08 3:23 [PATCH] epoll: add exclusive wakeups flag Jason Baron 2015-12-08 3:23 ` [PATCH] epoll: add EPOLLEXCLUSIVE flag Jason Baron 2015-12-08 3:23 ` Jason Baron 2016-01-28 7:16 ` [PATCH] epoll: add exclusive wakeups flag Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-01-28 7:16 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-01-28 17:57 ` Jason Baron 2016-01-29 8:14 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-02-01 19:42 ` Jason Baron 2016-02-01 19:42 ` Jason Baron 2016-03-10 18:53 ` Jason Baron 2016-03-10 19:47 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-10 19:47 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-10 19:58 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-10 19:58 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-10 20:40 ` Jason Baron 2016-03-10 20:40 ` Jason Baron 2016-03-11 20:30 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-11 20:30 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) [not found] ` <56E32FC5.4030902@akamai.com> [not found] ` <56E353CF.6050503@gmail.com> [not found] ` <56E6D0ED.20609@akamai.com> 2016-03-14 17:47 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-14 19:32 ` Jason Baron 2016-03-14 19:32 ` Jason Baron 2016-03-14 20:01 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) [this message] 2016-03-14 20:01 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-14 21:03 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-14 21:03 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-14 22:35 ` Jason Baron 2016-03-14 23:09 ` Madars Vitolins 2016-03-14 23:26 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-14 23:26 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 2016-03-15 2:36 ` Jason Baron 2016-03-15 2:36 ` Jason Baron
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=56E71894.4090607@gmail.com \ --to=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=corbet@lwn.net \ --cc=hagen@jauu.net \ --cc=jbaron@akamai.com \ --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=luto@amacapital.net \ --cc=m@silodev.com \ --cc=mingo@kernel.org \ --cc=normalperson@yhbt.net \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \ /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: linkBe 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.