Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20120618141747.022ca4a8@adobe.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:58:44 -0700
From:	"Paton J. Lewis" <palewis@...be.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Holland <pholland@...be.com>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] epoll: Improved support for multi-threaded clients

cc Michael Kerrisk as recommended below.

At 6/13/2012 04:27 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:

>Let's cc Davide.
>
>On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:34:49 -0700
>Paton Lewis <palewis@...be.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > It is not currently possible to reliably delete epoll items when using the
> > same epoll set from multiple threads. After calling epoll_ctl with
> > EPOLL_CTL_DEL, another thread might still be executing code related to an
> > event for that epoll item (in response to epoll_wait). Therefore 
> the deleting
> > thread does not know when it is safe to delete resources pertaining to the
> > associated epoll item because another thread might be using those 
> resources.
>
>We often solve this sort of thing with refcounting - the EPOLL_CTL_DEL
>will drop the refcount and, if that fell to zero, remove the object.
>So if the object is in use by another thread, that other thread will
>hold a refcount and that other thread will do the object removal when
>dropping its refcount.
>
>I don't know if that model can be used here?

Andrew, thank you for your response.

First, I should point out that the fundamental problem we are trying 
to solve is that userspace code needs to know whether or not an epoll 
item was in the ready queue at the time EPOLL_CTL_DEL was executed. 
Furthermore, we want to transfer that information back to userspace 
in a way that won't break existing code that uses epoll.

We could use a refcount to track whether the epoll item was in the 
ready list or not at the time EPOLL_CTL_DEL was received, but we 
still need a way to transfer that information back to userspace. 
Since the refcount would only ever be zero or one, epoll_ctl could 
set a bit in epoll_event.events (perhaps called EPOLLNOTREADY). 
However, this could cause a problem with any legacy code that relies 
on the fact that the epoll_ctl epoll_event parameter is ignored for 
EPOLL_CTL_DEL. Any such code which passed an invalid pointer for that 
parameter would suddenly generate a fault when running on the new 
kernel code, even though it worked fine in the past.

It seems that there are two ways to send information from the kernel 
back to userspace via the epoll_ctl API: via the return value or by 
modifying the epoll_event structure. In either case we are wary of 
changing the behavior of epoll_ctl in response to the existing 
control commands for fear of breaking legacy code. Therefore we 
recommended adding a new control word (EPOLL_CTL_DISABLE) to ensure 
that legacy code would not be affected.

I should point out that an alternative possibility would be to add a 
new control word, perhaps called EPOLL_CTL_DEL_AND_REPORT, that would 
function exactly like EPOLL_CTL_DEL except that it could return 
-EBUSY if the deleted item was not originally in the ready queue.

> > The deleting thread could wait an arbitrary amount of time after calling
> > epoll_ctl with EPOLL_CTL_DEL and before deleting the item, but this is
> > inefficient and could result in the destruction of resources before another
> > thread is done handling an event returned by epoll_wait.
> >
> > This patch introduces the new epoll_ctl command EPOLL_CTL_DISABLE, which
> > disables the associated epoll item and returns -EBUSY if the 
> epoll item is not
> > currently in the epoll ready queue. This allows multiple threads to use a
> > mutex to determine when it is safe to delete an epoll item and 
> its associated
> > resources. This allows epoll items to be deleted and closed efficiently and
> > without error.
> >
> > This patch has been tested against the following checklist:
> > http://kernelnewbies.org/UpstreamMerge/SubmitChecklist
> >
> > The following psuedocode attempts to illustrate the problem as well as the
> > solution provided by this patch.
> >
> >
> > Pseudocode for the deleting thread:
>
>It would be nice to start accumulating epoll test code in
>tools/testing/selftests/epoll.  If you have something which can be used
>to kick that off, please do consider preparing it.

I'm happy to contribute; thanks for suggesting that.

>Also, a user-visible feature wuch as this should be documented in Linux
>manpages.  So please do cc Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com> as
>we work on this.

Added, thank you.

Since we're discussing a possible userspace kernel API change, is 
there someone on the GCC team who we should also cc?

Thank you,
Pat

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists