lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] epoll: add exclusive wakeups flag
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-14 21:41    [W:2.034 / U:0.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site