[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180629132848.GA28510@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:28:48 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: replace f_ops->get_poll_head with a static
->f_poll_head pointer
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 02:11:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Christoph, do you have a test program for IOCB_CMD_POLL and what it's
> actually supposed to do?
https://pagure.io/libaio/c/9c6935e81854d1585bbfa48c35b185849d746864?branch=aio-poll
is the actual test in libaio. In addition to that the seastar library
actually has a real life user. But given that is c++ with all modern
bells and whistles you'll probably have an as hard time as me actually
understanding that.
> Because I think that what it can do is simply to do the ->poll() calls
> outside the iocb locks, and then just attach the poll table to the
> kioctx afterwards.
We could do that on the submit side fairly easily. The problem
is really the completion side, where I'd much avoid introducing a
spurious context switch. Right now even with a NULL qproc we can't
guarantee any of that. So we'll need to schedule out to a workqueue,
and then from that schedule the potential multiple NULL qproc calls,
which might actually block elsewhere even if __pollwait is never called.
> This whole "poll must not block" is a complete red herring. It doesn't
> come from any other requirements than BAD AIO GARBAGE CODE.
I comes from the fact to avoid a totally pointless context switch.
aio code itself works just fine called from a workqueue, we have
exatly that case when file system do non-trivial operations in their
end_io handler.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists