[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52939151.8030908@akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:05:05 -0500
From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To: Shawn Landden <shawnlandden@...il.com>
CC: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: disappearing listen()ed SO_REUSEPORT sockets across fork() when
using epoll
On 11/22/2013 12:53 PM, Shawn Landden wrote:
> Hello, when running the attached program on 3.12 child processes
> are missing a socket fd opened, set with SO_REUSEPORT, listen()ed to,
> and added to epoll_ctl().
>
> This is the output I get when pointing "wget http://localhost:5555/"
> at the attached program:
>
> main PID 31591
> PID 31634 started
> PID 31634 accept()ed connection
> PID 31635 started
> PID 31636 started
> PID 31635 accept() failed: Bad file descriptor
> PID 31636 accept() failed: Bad file descriptor
> PID 31634 accept()ed connection
> PID 31634 accept()ed connection
> PID 31634 accept()ed connection
> PID 31634 accept()ed connection
>
>
> While I would expect something like:
>
> main PID 31591
> PID 31634 started
> PID 31634 accept()ed connection
> PID 31635 started
> PID 31636 started
> PID 31635 accept()ed connection
> PID 31636 accept()ed connection
>
> -more new processes, but inversely proportional to number of listening processes
> -accept() always returns successfully
>
>
The 'close(sockfd);' looks to be racing with the accept() calls. Removing seems
to get the result you are looking for.
Thanks,
-Jason
--
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