From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: jbaron@akamai.com, rpenyaev@suse.de, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fs/epoll: restore waking from ep_done_scan()
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:50:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210405185018.40d437d392863f743131fcda@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210405231025.33829-3-dave@stgolabs.net>
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:10:25 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:
> 339ddb53d373 (fs/epoll: remove unnecessary wakeups of nested epoll) changed
> the userspace visible behavior of exclusive waiters blocked on a common
> epoll descriptor upon a single event becoming ready. Previously, all tasks
> doing epoll_wait would awake, and now only one is awoken, potentially causing
> missed wakeups on applications that rely on this behavior, such as Apache Qpid.
>
> While the aforementioned commit aims at having only a wakeup single path in
> ep_poll_callback (with the exceptions of epoll_ctl cases), we need to restore
> the wakeup in what was the old ep_scan_ready_list() such that the next thread
> can be awoken, in a cascading style, after the waker's corresponding ep_send_events().
>
Tricky. 339ddb53d373 was merged in December 2019. So do we backport
this fix? Could any userspace code be depending upon the
post-339ddb53d373 behaviour?
Or do we just leave the post-339ddb53d373 code as-is? Presumably the
issue is very rarely encountered, and changeing it back has its own
risks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-06 1:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-05 23:10 [PATCH 0/2] fs/epoll: restore user-visible behavior upon event ready Davidlohr Bueso
2021-04-05 23:10 ` [PATCH 1/2] kselftest: introduce new epoll test case Davidlohr Bueso
2021-04-05 23:10 ` [PATCH 2/2] fs/epoll: restore waking from ep_done_scan() Davidlohr Bueso
2021-04-06 1:50 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2021-04-06 3:22 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-04-06 5:09 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210405185018.40d437d392863f743131fcda@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rpenyaev@suse.de \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).