On Mon, 01/12 02:08, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 04:24:00PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Thu, 01/08 21:21, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:49:08PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 01/08 18:24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Fam Zheng <famz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 01/08 17:28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Fam Zheng <famz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >> > On Thu, 01/08 09:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > > >> >> I'd like to see a more ambitious change, since the timer isn't the
> > > > > >> >> only problem like this. Specifically, I'd like a syscall that does a
> > > > > >> >> list of epoll-related things and then waits. The list of things could
> > > > > >> >> include, at least:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> - EPOLL_CTL_MOD actions: level-triggered epoll users are likely to
> > > > > >> >> want to turn on and off their requests for events on a somewhat
> > > > > >> >> regular basis.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > This sounds good to me.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> - timerfd_settime actions: this allows a single syscall to wait and
> > > > > >> >> adjust *both* monotonic and real-time wakeups.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I'm not sure, doesn't this break orthogonality between epoll and timerfd?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yes. It's not very elegant, and more elegant ideas are welcome.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the purpose of embedding timerfd operation here? Modifying timerfd
> > > > > > for each poll doesn't sound a common pattern to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Setting a timeout is definitely a common pattern, hence this thread.
> > > > > But the current timeout interface sucks, and people should really use
> > > > > absolute time. (My epoll software uses absolute time.) But then
> > > > > users need to decide whether to have their timeout based on the
> > > > > monotonic clock or the realtime clock (or something else entirely).
> > > > > Some bigger programs may want both -- they may have internal events
> > > > > queued for certain times and for certain timeouts, and those should
> > > > > use realtime and monotonic respectively. Heck, users may also want
> > > > > separate slack values on those.
> > > > >
> > > > > Timerfd is the only thing we have right now that is anywhere near
> > > > > flexible enough. Obviously if epoll became fancy enough, then we
> > > > > could do away with the timerfd entirely here.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Would this make sense? It could look like:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> int epoll_mod_and_pwait(int epfd,
> > > > > >> >> struct epoll_event *events, int maxevents,
> > > > > >> >> struct epoll_command *commands, int ncommands,
> > > > > >> >> const sigset_t *sigmask);
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > What about flags?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> No room. Maybe it should just be a struct for everything instead of
> > > > > >> separate args.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also no room for timeout. A single struct sounds the only way to go.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's what timerfd is for. I think it would be a bit weird to
> > > > > support "timeout" and detailed timerfd control.
> > > >
> > > > I see what you mean. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > I still don't like hooking timerfd in the interface. Besides the unclean
> > > > interface, it also feels cubersome and overkill to let users setup and add a
> > > > dedicated timerfd to implement timeout.
> > > >
> > > > How about this:
> > > >
> > > > int epoll_mod_wait(int epfd, struct epoll_mod_wait_data *data);
> > > >
> > > > struct epoll_mod_wait_data {
> > > > struct epoll_event *events;
> > > > int maxevents;
> > > > struct epoll_mod_cmd {
> > > > int op,
> > > > int fd;
> > > > void *data;
> > > > } *cmds;
> > > > int ncmds;
> > > > int flags;
> > > > sigset_t *sigmask;
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > Commands ops are:
> > > >
> > > > EPOLL_CTL_ADD
> > > > @fd is the fd to modify; @data is epoll_event.
> > > > EPOLL_CTL_MOD
> > > > @fd is the fd to modify; @data is epoll_event.
> > > > EPOLL_CTL_DEL
> > > > @fd is the fd to modify; @data is epoll_event.
> > > >
> > > > EPOLL_CTL_SET_TIMEOUT
> > > > @fd is ignored, @data is timespec.
> > > > Clock type and relative/absolute are selected by flags as below.
> > > >
> > > > Flags are given to override timeout defaults:
> > > > EPOLL_FL_MONOTONIC_CLOCK
> > > > If set, don't use realtime clock, use monotonic clock.
> > > > EPOLL_FL_ABSOLUTE_TIMEOUT
> > > > If set, don't use relative timeout, use absolute timeout.
> > >
> > > I'd suggest using an "int clockid" field instead, like timerfd_settime;
> > > even if it only accepts CLOCK_REALTIME and CLOCK_MONOTONIC, if it needs
> > > extending in the future, it'd be painful to have to remap new CLOCK_*
> > > constants into the EPOLL_FL_* namespace. (I do think dropping timeouts
> > > in favor of timerfds makes things more nicely orthogonal, but epoll_wait
> > > already has a timeout parameter, so *shrug*.)
> > >
> > > Also, I think that structure has too many levels of indirection; it'd
> > > produce many unnecessary cache misses; considering you're trying to
> > > eliminate the overhead of one or two extra syscalls, you don't want to
> > > introduce a pile of unnecessary cache misses in the processes. I'd
> > > suggest inlining cmds as an array at the end of the structure, and
> > > turning "void *data" into an inline epoll_event. (Or, you could use
> > > "events" as an in/out parameter.)
> > >
> > > You could drop EPOLL_CTL_SET_TIMEOUT, and just include a clockid and
> > > timespec directly in the top-level structure.
> > >
> > > And I'd suggest either making flags a top-level parameter or putting it
> > > at the start of the structure, to make future extension easier.
> >
> > Makes sense to me, thanks.
> >
> > Also the number of cmds are undecided until we do a copy_from_user for the
> > header fields before another one for specified number of cmds. So I think it's
> > better to move ncmds and cmds to top level parameter.
>
> That seems like an even better idea, yeah.
>
One more question I'm not sure regarding the semantics: should we make the
syscall atomic? I.e if one of the cmds failed even before wait, or if all the
cmds are executed, but the eventual wait failed, should we revert the commands'
effect? Or return overall result and result for each cmd if failed? Or just
claim that it's possible for a first few cmds to be effective even on error?
It will be way more complicated to make it atomic, so I'd like to be clear what
we should do. Ideas?
Thanks,
Fam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
