[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130309071037.GA13360@dcvr.yhbt.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 07:10:37 +0000
From: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
To: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: epoll: possible bug from wakeup_source activation
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net> wrote:
> > What happens if ep_modify calls ep_destroy_wakeup_source
> > while __pm_stay_awake is running on the same epi->ws?
>
> Yes, that looks like a problem. I think calling
> ep_destroy_wakeup_source with ep->lock held should fix that. It is not
> clear how useful changing EPOLLWAKEUP in ep_modify is, so
> alternatively we could remove that feature and instead only allow it
> to be set in ep_insert.
ep->lock would work, but ep->lock is already a source of heavy
contention in my multithreaded+epoll webservers.
Perhaps RCU can be used? I've no experience with RCU, but I've been
meaning to get acquainted with RCU.
Another possible solution is to only use ep->ws and add an atomic
counter to ep; so __pm_relax(ep->ws) is only called when the atomic
counter reaches zero.
--
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