Re: [PATCH RESEND] fs/epoll: fix the edge-triggered mode for nested epoll
From: Heiher
Date: Wed Sep 04 2019 - 10:02:55 EST
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:02 PM Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/4/19 5:57 AM, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> > On 2019-09-03 23:08, Jason Baron wrote:
> >> On 9/2/19 11:36 AM, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> This is indeed a bug. (quick side note: could you please remove efd[1]
> >>> from your test, because it is not related to the reproduction of a
> >>> current bug).
> >>>
> >>> Your patch lacks a good description, what exactly you've fixed. Let
> >>> me speak out loud and please correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding
> >>> of epoll internals has become a bit rusty: when epoll fds are nested
> >>> an attempt to harvest events (ep_scan_ready_list() call) produces a
> >>> second (repeated) event from an internal fd up to an external fd:
> >>>
> >>> epoll_wait(efd[0], ...):
> >>> ep_send_events():
> >>> ep_scan_ready_list(depth=0):
> >>> ep_send_events_proc():
> >>> ep_item_poll():
> >>> ep_scan_ready_list(depth=1):
> >>> ep_poll_safewake():
> >>> ep_poll_callback()
> >>> list_add_tail(&epi, &epi->rdllist);
> >>> ^^^^^^
> >>> repeated event
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In your patch you forbid wakeup for the cases, where depth != 0, i.e.
> >>> for all nested cases. That seems clear. But what if we can go further
> >>> and remove the whole chunk, which seems excessive:
> >>>
> >>> @@ -885,26 +886,11 @@ static __poll_t ep_scan_ready_list(struct
> >>> eventpoll *ep,
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> - if (!list_empty(&ep->rdllist)) {
> >>> - /*
> >>> - * Wake up (if active) both the eventpoll wait list and
> >>> - * the ->poll() wait list (delayed after we release the
> >>> lock).
> >>> - */
> >>> - if (waitqueue_active(&ep->wq))
> >>> - wake_up(&ep->wq);
> >>> - if (waitqueue_active(&ep->poll_wait))
> >>> - pwake++;
> >>> - }
> >>> write_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
> >>>
> >>> if (!ep_locked)
> >>> mutex_unlock(&ep->mtx);
> >>>
> >>> - /* We have to call this outside the lock */
> >>> - if (pwake)
> >>> - ep_poll_safewake(&ep->poll_wait);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I reason like that: by the time we've reached the point of scanning events
> >>> for readiness all wakeups from ep_poll_callback have been already fired and
> >>> new events have been already accounted in ready list (ep_poll_callback()
> >>> calls
> >>> the same ep_poll_safewake()). Here, frankly, I'm not 100% sure and probably
> >>> missing some corner cases.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> So the: 'wake_up(&ep->wq);' part, I think is about waking up other
> >> threads that may be in waiting in epoll_wait(). For example, there may
> >> be multiple threads doing epoll_wait() on the same epoll fd, and the
> >> logic above seems to say thread 1 may have processed say N events and
> >> now its going to to go off to work those, so let's wake up thread 2 now
> >> to handle the next chunk.
> >
> > Not quite. Thread which calls ep_scan_ready_list() processes all the
> > events, and while processing those, removes them one by one from the
> > ready list. But if event mask is !0 and event belongs to
> > Level Triggered Mode descriptor (let's say default mode) it tails event
> > again back to the list (because we are in level mode, so event should
> > be there). So at the end of this traversing loop ready list is likely
> > not empty, and if so, wake up again is called for nested epoll fds.
> > But, those nested epoll fds should get already all the notifications
> > from the main event callback ep_poll_callback(), regardless any thread
> > which traverses events.
> >
> > I suppose this logic exists for decades, when Davide (the author) was
> > reshuffling the code here and there.
> >
> > But I do not feel confidence to state that this extra wakeup is bogus,
> > I just have a gut feeling that it looks excessive.
>
> Note that I was talking about the wakeup done on ep->wq not ep->poll_wait.
> The path that I'm concerned about is let's say that there are N events
> queued on the ready list. A thread that was woken up in epoll_wait may
> decide to only process say N/2 of then. Then it will call wakeup on ep->wq
> and this will wakeup another thread to process the remaining N/2. Without
> the wakeup, the original thread isn't going to process the events until
> it finishes with the original N/2 and gets back to epoll_wait(). So I'm not
> sure how important that path is but I wanted to at least note the change
> here would impact that behavior.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jason
>
>
> >
> >> So I think removing all that even for the
> >> depth 0 case is going to change some behavior here. So perhaps, it
> >> should be removed for all depths except for 0? And if so, it may be
> >> better to make 2 patches here to separate these changes.
> >>
> >> For the nested wakeups, I agree that the extra wakeups seem unnecessary
> >> and it may make sense to remove them for all depths. I don't think the
> >> nested epoll semantics are particularly well spelled out, and afaict,
> >> nested epoll() has behaved this way for quite some time. And the current
> >> behavior is not bad in the way that a missing wakeup or false negative
> >> would be.
> >
> > That's 100% true! For edge mode extra wake up is not a bug, not optimal
> > for userspace - yes, but that can't lead to any lost wakeups.
> >
> > --
> > Roman
> >
I tried to remove the whole chunk of code that Roman said, and it
seems that there
are no obvious problems with the two test programs below:
Test case 1:
t0
|
e0
|
e1 (et)
|
s0 (lt)
When s0 is readable, the thread 0 can only read once event from e0.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/epoll.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int sfd[2];
int efd[2];
int nfds;
struct epoll_event e;
if (socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, sfd) < 0)
goto out;
efd[0] = epoll_create(1);
if (efd[0] < 0)
goto out;
efd[1] = epoll_create(1);
if (efd[1] < 0)
goto out;
e.events = EPOLLIN;
if (epoll_ctl(efd[1], EPOLL_CTL_ADD, sfd[0], &e) < 0)
goto out;
e.events = EPOLLIN | EPOLLET;
if (epoll_ctl(efd[0], EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd[1], &e) < 0)
goto out;
if (write(sfd[1], "w", 1) != 1)
goto out;
nfds = epoll_wait(efd[0], &e, 1, 0);
if (nfds != 1)
goto out;
nfds = epoll_wait(efd[0], &e, 1, 0);
if (nfds != 0)
goto out;
nfds = epoll_wait(efd[1], &e, 1, 0);
if (nfds != 1)
goto out;
nfds = epoll_wait(efd[1], &e, 1, 0);
if (nfds != 1)
goto out;
close(efd[1]);
close(efd[0]);
close(sfd[0]);
close(sfd[1]);
printf("PASS\n");
return 0;
out:
printf("FAIL\n");
return -1;
}
Test case 2:
t0 t1
\ /
e0
/ \
(et) e1 e2 (et)
| |
(lt) s0 s2 (lt)
When s0 and s2 are readable, both thread 0 and thread 1 can read an
event from e0.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <sys/epoll.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
static int efd[3];
static int sfd[4];
static int count;
static void *
thread_handler(void *data)
{
struct epoll_event e;
if (epoll_wait(efd[0], &e, 1, -1) == 1)
count++;
return NULL;
}
static void *
emit_handler(void *data)
{
usleep (100000);
write(sfd[1], "w", 1);
write(sfd[3], "w", 1);
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
struct epoll_event e;
pthread_t tw, te;
if (socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, &sfd[0]) < 0)
goto out;
if (socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, &sfd[2]) < 0)
goto out;
efd[0] = epoll_create(1);
if (efd[0] < 0)
goto out;
efd[1] = epoll_create(1);
if (efd[1] < 0)
goto out;
efd[2] = epoll_create(1);
if (efd[2] < 0)
goto out;
e.events = EPOLLIN;
if (epoll_ctl(efd[1], EPOLL_CTL_ADD, sfd[0], &e) < 0)
goto out;
e.events = EPOLLIN;
if (epoll_ctl(efd[2], EPOLL_CTL_ADD, sfd[2], &e) < 0)
goto out;
e.events = EPOLLIN | EPOLLET;
if (epoll_ctl(efd[0], EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd[1], &e) < 0)
goto out;
e.events = EPOLLIN | EPOLLET;
if (epoll_ctl(efd[0], EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd[2], &e) < 0)
goto out;
if (pthread_create(&tw, NULL, thread_handler, NULL) < 0)
goto out;
if (pthread_create(&te, NULL, emit_handler, NULL) < 0)
goto out;
if (epoll_wait(efd[0], &e, 1, -1) == 1)
count++;
if (pthread_join(tw, NULL) < 0)
goto out;
if (count != 2)
goto out;
close(efd[0]);
close(efd[1]);
close(efd[2]);
close(sfd[0]);
close(sfd[1]);
close(sfd[2]);
close(sfd[3]);
printf ("PASS\n");
return 0;
out:
printf("FAIL\n");
return -1;
}
t0: thread0
t1: thread1
e0: epoll0 (efd[0])
e1: epoll1 (efd[1])
e2: epoll2 (efd[2])
s0: socket0 (sfd[0])
s2: socket2 (sfd[2])
Is it possible to prove that this modification is correct, or any
other corner cases are missing?
--
Best regards!
Hev
https://hev.cc