netdev - Re: [GIT PULL] Add support for epoll min wait time

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20221210155811.GA22540@1wt.eu>
Date:   Sat, 10 Dec 2022 16:58:11 +0100
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Add support for epoll min wait time

Hi Jens,

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 08:36:11AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> I've had this done for months and posted a few times, but little
> attention has been received.

I personally think this is particularly cool, for having faced the
same needs in the past. I'm just wondering how long we'll avoid the
need for marking certain FDs as urgent (i.e. for inter-thread wakeup)
which would bypass the min delay.

I'm just seeing something a bit odd in this series:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> epoll-min_ts-2022-12-08
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Jens Axboe (8):
>       eventpoll: cleanup branches around sleeping for events
>       eventpoll: don't pass in 'timed_out' to ep_busy_loop()
>       eventpoll: split out wait handling
>       eventpoll: move expires to epoll_wq
>       eventpoll: move file checking earlier for epoll_ctl()
>       eventpoll: add support for min-wait
>       eventpoll: add method for configuring minimum wait on epoll context
>       eventpoll: ensure we pass back -EBADF for a bad file descriptor

This last patch fixes a bug introduced by the 5th one. Why not squash it
instead of purposely introducing a bug then its fix ? Or maybe it was
just overlooked when you sent the PR ?

Thanks,
Willy