[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180802160837.GZ30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 17:08:38 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] aio: implement IOCB_CMD_POLL
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 06:08:16PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 05:00:32PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > BTW, what happens if we insert into one queue and immediately get
> > woken up, even before the damn thing gets to the end of ->poll(),
> > which proceeds to call poll_wait() again (on another queue)?
> > AFAICS, apt.error will be set by the second callback and completely
> > ignored. And so will the return value of ->poll()...
> >
> > Sigh... Analysis of that thing is bloody painful, mostly because
> > it's hard to describe the state...
>
> That's the problem with the ->poll interface. We call it, then
> have magic happen underneath where it might or might not get added
> to one (or more if we didn't exclude that) waitqueues, and might
> have actually been worken before return. I can't really think of
> a good way to do that entirely sanely.
>
> Best I can think of is to only allow using file ops that do keyed
> wakeups and rely on the keyed wakeups alone. I've started coming
> up with a version of that, but it won't be until tomorrow at least
> that I can post it.
What does it buy you? You still have to deal with trylock failures
in wakeup...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists