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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists