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: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 09:05:02 -0700 From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> 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 On 12/10/22 8:58?AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > 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. Thanks! No opinion on urgent fds, it's not something I have looked into... > 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 ? I didn't want to rebase it, so I just put the fix at the end. Not that important imho, only issue there was an ltp case getting a wrong error value. Hence didn't deem it important enough to warrant a rebase. -- Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists