Re: [RFC v3 1/2] epoll: avoid spinlock contention with wfcqueue
From: Arve Hjønnevåg
Date: Fri Mar 22 2013 - 00:12:57 EST
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Eric Wong <normalperson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Changes since v2:
>> > * epi->state is no longer atomic, we only cmpxchg in ep_poll_callback
>> > now and rely on implicit barriers in other places for reading.
>> > * intermediate EP_STATE_DEQUEUE removed, this (with xchg) caused too
>> > much overhead in the ep_send_events loop and could not eliminate
>> > starvation dangers from improper EPOLLET usage (the original code
>> > had this problem, too, the window is just a few cycles larger, now).
>> > * minor code cleanups
>> > /*
>> > * Activate ep->ws before deactivating epi->ws to prevent
>> Does anything deactivate ep->ws now?
> Oops, I left that out when I killed ep_scan_ready_list.
> But I think we need a different approach to wakeup sources in
> this series...
>> > + /*
>> > + * reset item state for EPOLLONESHOT and EPOLLET
>> > + * no barrier here, rely on ep->mtx release for write barrier
>> > + */
>> What happens if ep_poll_callback runs before you set epi->state below?
>> It used to queue on ep->ovflist and call __pm_stay_awake on ep->ws,
>> but now it does not appear to do anything.
>> > + epi->state = EP_STATE_IDLE;
>> > }
>> > return eventcnt;
>> > }
> With EPOLLET and improper usage (not hitting EAGAIN), the event now
> has a larger window to be lost (as mentioned in my changelog).
What about the case where EPOLLET is not set? The old code did not
drop events in that case.
> As far as correct __pm_stay_awake/__pm_relax handling, perhaps adding
> an atomic counter to struct eventpoll (or each epitem) will work?
The wakeup_source should stay in sync with the epoll state. I don't
think any additional state is needed.
> If we go with atomic counter in struct eventpoll, is per-epitem
> wakeup_source still necessary? We have space in epitem now, but
> maybe one day we will might need it.
The wakeup_source per epitem is useful for accounting reasons. If
suspend fails, it is useful to know which device caused it.
> Thanks for looking at this patch.
> Btw, I'm curious; which applications use EPOLLWAKEUP?
> My epoll work is focused on network servers with thousands of clients,
> and I don't think any of them use (or have use for) EPOLLWAKEUP.
> But I will keep EPOLLWAKEUP users in mind when working on epoll :)
EPOLLWAKEUP is only needed on systems that use suspend. I don't know
if it is currently in use, but it is intended to at least replace the
evdev wakelock in the android kernel, but user-space needs to be
updated before we can drop that patch.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/