linux-kernel - [PATCHSET RFC 0/4] Add support for epoll min

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20221007165637.22374-1-axboe@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri,  7 Oct 2022 10:56:33 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCHSET RFC 0/4] Add support for epoll min_wait

Hi,

This adds support for EPOLL_CTL_MIN_WAIT, which allows setting a minimum
time that epoll_wait() should wait for events on a given epoll context.
Some justification and numbers are in patch 4, patches 1-3 are really
just prep patches.

Sending this as an RFC to hash out the API, basically. This is
obviously a per-context type of operation in this patchset, which isn't
necessarily ideal for any use case. Questions to be debated:

1) Would we want this to be available through epoll_wait() directly?
   That would allow this to be done on a per-epoll_wait() basis, rather
   than be tied to the specific context.

2) If the answer to #1 is yes, would we still want EPOLL_CTL_MIN_WAIT?

I think there are pros and cons to both, and perhaps the answer to both
is "yes". There are some benefits to doing this at epoll setup time,
for example - it nicely isolates it to that part rather than needing
to be done dynamically everytime epoll_wait() is called. This also
helps the application code, as it can turn off any busy'ness tracking
based on if the setup accepted EPOLL_CTL_MIN_WAIT or not.

Anyway, tossing this out there as it yielded quite good results in
some initial testing, we're running more of it.

-- 
Jens Axboe