[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1356960060-1263-1-git-send-email-normalperson@yhbt.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:21:00 +0000
From: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>,
Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Voellmy <andreas.voellmy@...e.edu>,
"Junchang(Jason) Wang" <junchang.wang@...e.edu>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] poll: prevent missed events if _qproc is NULL
This patch seems to fix my issue with ppoll() being stuck on my
SMP machine: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/70414
The change to sock_poll_wait() in
commit 626cf236608505d376e4799adb4f7eb00a8594af
(poll: add poll_requested_events() and poll_does_not_wait() functions)
seems to have allowed additional cases where the SMP memory barrier
is not issued before checking for readiness.
In my case, this affects the select()-family of functions
which register descriptors once and set _qproc to NULL before
checking events again (after poll_schedule_timeout() returns).
The set_mb() barrier in poll_schedule_timeout() appears to be
insufficient on my SMP x86-64 machine (as it's only an xchg()).
This may also be related to the epoll issue described by
Andreas Voellmy in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1408782/
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
Cc: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andreas Voellmy <andreas.voellmy@...e.edu>
Cc: "Junchang(Jason) Wang" <junchang.wang@...e.edu>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
---
If this patch is correct, I think we can just drop the
poll_does_not_wait() function entirely since poll_wait()
does the same check anyways...
include/net/sock.h | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
index c945fba..1923e48 100644
--- a/include/net/sock.h
+++ b/include/net/sock.h
@@ -1925,8 +1925,9 @@ static inline bool wq_has_sleeper(struct socket_wq *wq)
static inline void sock_poll_wait(struct file *filp,
wait_queue_head_t *wait_address, poll_table *p)
{
- if (!poll_does_not_wait(p) && wait_address) {
- poll_wait(filp, wait_address, p);
+ if (wait_address) {
+ if (!poll_does_not_wait(p))
+ poll_wait(filp, wait_address, p);
/* We need to be sure we are in sync with the
* socket flags modification.
*
--
Eric Wong
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists