Re: [PATCH 2/2] eventpoll: Fix epoll_wait() report false negative

[Mateusz Guzik]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 3:41 PM Nam Cao <namcao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My question is whether the performance of epoll_wait() with zero
> timeout is really that important that we have to complicate
> things. If epoll_wait() with zero timeout is called repeatedly in a loop
> but there is no event, I'm sure there will be measurabled performance
> drop. But sane user would just use timeout in that case.
>
> epoll's data is protected by a lock. Therefore I think the most
> straightforward solution is just taking the lock before reading the
> data.
>

I have no idea what the original use case is. I see the author of the
patch is cc'ed, so hopefully they will answer.

> Lockless is hard to get right and may cause hard-to-debug problems. So
> unless this performance drop somehow bothers someone, I would prefer
> "keep it simple, stupid".
>

Well epoll is known to suffer from lock contention, so I would like to
think the lockless games were motivated by a real-world need, but I'm
not going peruse the history to find out.

I can agree the current state concerning ep_events_available() is
avoidably error prone and something(tm) should be done. fwiw the
refcount thing is almost free on amd64, I have no idea how this pans
out on arm64.