Message-ID: <55C9AA37.4070209@igel.co.jp>
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:54:31 +0900
From:	Damian Hobson-Garcia <dhobsong@...l.co.jp>
To:	Martin Sustrik <sustrik@...bpm.com>
Cc:	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfd: implementation of EFD_MASK flag



On 2015-08-11 6:16 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> On 2015-08-10 10:57, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> On 2015-08-10 3:39 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
>>> On 2015-08-10 08:23, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
>>>> Replying to my own post, but I had the following comments/questions.
>>>> Martin, if you have any response to my comments I would be very
>>>> happy to
>>>> hear them.
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-10 2:51 PM, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
>>>>> From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@...bpm.com>
>>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> write(2):
>>>>>
>>>>> User is allowed to write only buffers containing the following
>>>>> structure:
>>>>>
>>>>> struct efd_mask {
>>>>>   __u32 events;
>>>>>   __u64 data;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> The value of 'events' should be any combination of event flags as
>>>>> defined by
>>>>> poll(2) function (POLLIN, POLLOUT, POLLERR, POLLHUP etc.) Specified
>>>>> events will
>>>>> be signaled when polling (select, poll, epoll) on the eventfd is done
>>>>> later on.
>>>>> 'data' is opaque data that are not interpreted by eventfd object.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not fully clear on the purpose that the 'data' member serves.  Does
>>>> this opaque handle need to be tied together with this event
>>>> synchronization construct?
>>>
>>> It's a convenience thing. Imagine you are implementing your own file
>>> descriptor type in user space. You create an EFD_MASK socket and a
>>> structure that will hold any state that you need for the socket (tx/rx
>>> buffers and such).
>>>
>>> Now you have two things to pass around. If you want to pass the fd to a
>>> function, it must have two parameters (fd and pointer to the structure).
>>>
>>> To fix it you can put the fd into the structure. That way there's only
>>> one thing to pass around (the structure).
>>>
>>> The problem with that approach is when you have generic code that deals
>>> with file descriptors. For example, a simple poller which accepts a list
>>> of (fd, callback) pairs and invokes the callback when one of the fds
>>> signals POLLIN. You can't send a pointer to a structure to such
>>> function. All you can send is the fd, but then, when the callback is
>>> invoked, fd is all you have. You have no idea where your state is.
>>>
>>> 'data' member allows you to put the pointer to the state to the socket
>>> itself. Thus, if you have a fd, you can always find out where the
>>> associated data is by reading the mask structure from the fd.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I see what you're saying. I guess that keeping track of the mapping
>> between the fd and the struct in user space could be non-trivial if
>> there are a large number of active fds that are polling very frequently.
>> Wouldn't it be sufficient to just use epoll() in this case though?  It
>> already seems to support this kind of thing.
> 
> My use case was like this:
> 
> int s = mysocket();
> ...
> // myrecv() can get the pointer to the structure
> // without user having to pass it as an argument
> myrecv(s, buf, sizeof(buf));
> 
> However, same behaviour can be accomplished by simply keeping
> a static array of pointers in the user space.
> 
> So let's cut this part out of the patch.
> 

Ok, I'll drop the 'data' member. I could add some padding to the
efd_mask structure so that it is the same size as the 64-bit data size
used when EFD_MASK is not set.

>>
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -55,6 +69,9 @@ __u64 eventfd_signal(struct eventfd_ctx *ctx,
>>>>> __u64 n)
>>>>>  {
>>>>> +    /* This function should never be used with eventfd in the mask
>>>>> mode. */
>>>>> +    BUG_ON(ctx->flags & EFD_MASK);
>>>>> +
>>>> ...
>>>>> @@ -158,6 +180,9 @@ int eventfd_ctx_remove_wait_queue(struct
>>>>> eventfd_ctx *ctx, wait_queue_t *wait,
>>>>>  {
>>>>> +    /* This function should never be used with eventfd in the mask
>>>>> mode. */
>>>>> +    BUG_ON(ctx->flags & EFD_MASK);
>>>>> +
>>>> ...
>>>>> @@ -188,6 +213,9 @@ ssize_t eventfd_ctx_read(struct eventfd_ctx *ctx,
>>>>> int no_wait, __u64 *cnt)
>>>>> +    /* This function should never be used with eventfd in the mask
>>>>> mode. */
>>>>> +    BUG_ON(ctx->flags & EFD_MASK);
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> If eventfd_ctx_fileget() returns EINVAL when EFD_MASK is set, I don't
>>>> think that there will be a way to call these functions in the mask
>>>> mode,
>>>> so it should be possible to get rid of the BUG_ON checks.
>>>
>>> Sure. Feel free to do so.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> @@ -230,6 +258,19 @@ static ssize_t eventfd_read(struct file *file,
>>>>> char __user *buf, size_t count,
>>>>>      ssize_t res;
>>>>>      __u64 cnt;
>>>>>
>>>>> +    if (ctx->flags & EFD_MASK) {
>>>>> +        struct efd_mask mask;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        if (count < sizeof(mask))
>>>>> +            return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +        spin_lock_irq(&ctx->wqh.lock);
>>>>> +        mask = ctx->mask;
>>>>> +        spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->wqh.lock);
>>>>> +        if (copy_to_user(buf, &mask, sizeof(mask)))
>>>>> +            return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +        return sizeof(mask);
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> For the other eventfd modes, reading the value will update the internal
>>>> state of the eventfd (either clearing or decrementing the counter).
>>>> Should something similar be done here? I'm thinking of a case where a
>>>> process is polling on this fd in a loop. Clearing the efd_mask data  on
>>>> read should provide an easy way for the polling process to know if
>>>> it is
>>>> seeing new poll events.
>>>
>>> No. In this case reading the value has no effect on the state of the fd.
>>> How it should work is rather:
>>>
>>> // fd is in POLLIN state
>>> poll(fd);
>>> // function exits with POLLIN but fd remains in POLLIN state
>>> my_recv(fd, buf, size);
>>> // my_recv function have found out that there's no more data to recv and
>>> switched off the POLLIN flag
>>> poll(fd); // we block here waiting for more data to arrive from the
>>> network
>>>
>>
>> How exactly doe the receiver switch off the POLLIN flag?  Does the
>> receiver also write to the eventfd? or do you mean that it just doesn't
>> set POLLIN in the events mask?  It seems cleaner to have the sender only
>> write the eventfd and the receiver only read it.  Your example would be
>> exactly the same, except that my_recv(fd, buf, size) would read to clear
>> instead of write.
> 
> Keep in mind that the user of your mysocket is not supposed to do
> recv() or send() on the raw underlying fd. It's the implementation,
> myrecv() and mysend(), that does that.
> 
> That being the case and also assuming that we cut the pointer out, there
> seems
> to be little use for recv() any more. The implementation of socket knows
> what state it is in and so it doesn't have to retrieve it using recv().
> 
> All it has to do is perform whatever business logic is needed and then
> set new
> state of the socket via send().
> 
> And the fact there's no clear use case, the logic of recv() is not obvious.
> We can very well return ENOTIMPL.

If the user of mysocket will only directly interact with the fd through
poll/select/epoll then yes, read()/recv() doesn't have any use, and I
agree, dropping it seems cleanest.


> 
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -292,8 +351,13 @@ static void eventfd_show_fdinfo(struct seq_file
>>>>> *m, struct file *f)
>>>>>      struct eventfd_ctx *ctx = f->private_data;
>>>>>
>>>>>      spin_lock_irq(&ctx->wqh.lock);
>>>>> -    seq_printf(m, "eventfd-count: %16llx\n",
>>>>> -           (unsigned long long)ctx->count);
>>>>> +    if (ctx->flags & EFD_MASK) {
>>>>> +        seq_printf(m, "eventfd-mask: %x\n",
>>>>> +                 (unsigned)ctx->mask.events);
>>>>> +    } else {
>>>>> +        seq_printf(m, "eventfd-count: %16llx\n",
>>>>> +                 (unsigned long long)ctx->count);
>>>>> +    }
>>>>>      spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->wqh.lock);
>>>>>  }
>>>> I think that putting the EFD_MASK functionality into a different fops
>>>> structure might be useful for reducing the number of if statements.
>>>
>>> Sure. No objections.
>>>
>>> Thanks for re-submitting the patch!
>>
>> My pleasure.
>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>
>> Damian
> 

Damian
--
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