lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: epoll design problems with common fork/exec patterns
Marc Lehmann a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 10:23:17AM +0200, Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
>>> In this case, the parent process works fine until the child closes fds,
>>> after which the fds become unarmed in the parent too. This works as
>> I have no idea what exact problem you have.
>
> Well, I explained it rather succinctly, I think. If you tell me whats unclear
> I can explain...
>
>> But if the child closes some
>> file descriptor that were 'cloned' at fork() time, this only decrements a
>> refcount, and definitely should not close it for the 'parent'.
>
> It doesn't. It removes it from the epoll set, though, so the parent will not
> receive events for that fd anymore.
>
>> I have some apps that are happily using epoll() and fork()/exec() and have
>
> The problem I described is fork/close/exec. close being the explicit
> syscall.
>
>> no problem at all. I usually use O_CLOEXEC so that all close() are done at
>> exec() time without having to do it in a loop. epoll continues to work as
>> expected in the parent process.
>
> This is because epoll doesn't behave like documented: It removes the fd
> from the parents epoll set only on an explicit close() syscall, not on an
> implicit close from exec.
>
>>> fd sets. This would explain the behaviour above. Unfortunately (or
>>> fortunately?) this is not what happens: when the fds are being closed by
>>> exec or exit, the fds do not get removed from the epoll set.
>> at exec() (granted CLOEXEC is asserted) or exit() time, only the refcount
>> of each file is decremented. Only if their refcount becomes NULL, files are
>> then removed from epoll set.
>
> Yes. But thats obviously not the only way to close fds.
>
>>> Is epoll really designed to be so incompatible with the most commno fork
>>> patterns? Shouldn't epoll do refcounting, as is commonly done under
>>> Unix? As the fd space is not shared between rpocesses, why does epoll
>>> try? Shouldn't the epoll information be copied just like the fd table
>>> itself, memory, and other resources?
>> Too many questions here, showing lack of understanding.
>
> You already said you don't the problem. No need to get insulting :(
>
>> epoll definitly is not useless. It is used on major and critical apps.
>> You certainly missed something.
>
> Well, it behaves like documented, which is the problem. You admit you
> don't understand the problem or the documentation, so again, no need to
> insult me.

Hum... I will update my english vocabulary and mark "missed" as an insult.

I have no problem with epoll nor its documentation.

>
>> Please provide some code to illustrate one exact problem you have.
>
> // assume there is an open epoll set that listens for events on fd 5
> if (fork () = 0)
> {
> close (5);
> // fd 5 is now removed from the epoll set of the parent.
> _exit (0);
> }
>

It doesnt on every kernels I had played with. And I played with *lot* of
kernels you know.

If such a bug exists on your kernel, please fill a complete bug report, giving
details.

Thank you

-
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: 2007-10-27 11:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site