Re: [PATCH] pipe_read: don't wake up the writer if the pipe is still full

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Mon Mar 10 2025 - 08:45:28 EST


On 03/10, Hillf Danton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 12:09:15 +0100 Oleg Nesterov
> > On 03/10, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:02:55 +0100 Oleg Nesterov
> > > >
> > > > So (again, in this particular case) we could apply the patch below
> > > > on top of Linus's tree.
> > > >
> > > > So, with or without these changes, the writer should be woken up at
> > > > step-03 in your scenario.
> > > >
> > > Fine, before checking my scenario once more, feel free to pinpoint the
> > > line number where writer is woken up, with the change below applied.
> >
> > 381 if (wake_writer)
> > ==> 382 wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wr_wait, EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM);
> > 383 if (wake_next_reader)
> > 384 wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->rd_wait, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
> > 385 kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_writers, SIGIO, POLL_OUT);
> > 386 if (ret > 0)
> > 387 file_accessed(filp);
> > 388 return ret;
> >
> > line 382, no?
> >
> Yes, but how is the wait loop at line-370 broken?
>
> 360 }
> 361 mutex_unlock(&pipe->mutex);
> 362
> 363 BUG_ON(wake_writer);
> 364 /*
> 365 * But because we didn't read anything, at this point we can
> 366 * just return directly with -ERESTARTSYS if we're interrupted,
> 367 * since we've done any required wakeups and there's no need
> 368 * to mark anything accessed. And we've dropped the lock.
> 369 */
> 370 if (wait_event_interruptible_exclusive(pipe->rd_wait, pipe_readable(pipe)) < 0)
> 371 return -ERESTARTSYS;

Hmm. I don't understand you, again.

OK, once some writer writes at least one byte (this will make the
pipe_empty() condition false) and wakes this reader up.

If you meant something else, say, if you referred to you previous
scenario, please clarify your question.

Oleg.