![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Davide Libenzi a écrit : > On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> Davide Libenzi a ?crit : >>> I don't care about both ways, but sys_poll() does the same thing epoll does >>> right now, so I would not change epoll behaviour. >>> >> Sure poll() cannot return a partial count, since its return value is : >> >> On success, a positive number is returned, where the number returned is >> the number of structures which have non-zero revents fields (in other >> words, those descriptors with events or errors reported). >> >> poll() is non destructive (it doesnt change any state into kernel). Returning >> EFAULT in case of an error in the very last bit of user area is mandatory. >> >> On the contrary : >> >> epoll_wait() does return a count of transfered events, and update some state >> in kernel (it consume Edge Trigered events : They can be lost forever if not >> reported to user) >> >> So epoll_wait() is much more like read(), that also updates file state in >> kernel (current file position) > > Lost forever means? If there are more processes watching some fd > (external events), they all get their own copy of the events in their own > private epoll fd. It's not that we "steal" things out of the kernel, is > not a 1:1 producer/consumer thing (one producer, 1 queue). It's one > producer, broadcast to all listeners (consumers) thing. The only case > where it'd matter is in the case of multiple threads sharing the same > epoll fd. In my particular epoll application, the producer is tcp stack, and I have one consumer. If an network event is lost in the EFAULT handling, its lost forever. In any case, my application do provide a correct user area, so this problem is only theorical. > In general, I'd be more for having the userspace get his own SEGFAULT > instead of letting it go with broken parameters. If I'm coding userspace, > and I'm doing something wrong, I like the kernel to let me know, instead > of trying to fix things for me. > Also, epoll can easily be fixed (add a param to ep_reinject_items() to > re-inject items in case of error/EFAULT) to leave events in the ready-list > and let the EFAULT emerge. Please dont slow the hot path for a basically "User Error". It's already tested in the transfert function, with two conditional branches for each transfered event. > Anyone else has opinions about this? > > > > > PS: Next time it'd be great if you Cc: me when posting epoll patches, so > you avoid Andrew the job of doing it. Yes, but this particular patch was a followup on own kevent Andrew patch. I have a bunch of patches for epoll I will send to you :) Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-09 07:27 [W:0.159 / U:0.050 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||