On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:24:34AM -0500, Jason Baron wrote: > On 12/01/2017 06:03 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:34:50PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote: > >> hmmm...I'm not sure how this suggestion would change the locking rules > >> from what we currently have. Right now, we use ep->lock, if we remove > >> that and use ep->wq->lock instead, there is just a 1-to-1 mapping there > >> that has not changed, since ep->wq->lock currently is completely not > >> being used. > > > > True. The patch below survives the amazing complex booting and starting > > systemd with lockdep enabled test. Do we have something resembling a > > epoll test suite? > > > > I don't think we have any in the kernel tree proper (other than some > selftests using epoll) but there are tests in ltp and some performance > tests such as: > > http://linux-scalability.org/epoll/epoll-test.c That one just seems to keep running until interrupted. I've run it for a while and it seems fine, but I doesn't seem to get any ok/failed kind of status. > http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/pipetest.c Seems to work fine as well, so I'm going to resend the updated patch.
