Re: [PATCH v2] epoll: Support for disabling items, and a self-test app.
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: 2012-10-19 13:03:39
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
Il 18/10/2012 20:05, Andy Lutomirski ha scritto:
Unless something is rather buggy in kernel land (and I don't think it
is), once EPOLL_CTL_DEL has returned, no call to epoll_wait that starts
*after* EPOLL_CTL_DEL finishes will return that object. This suggests
an RCU-like approach: once EPOLL_CTL_DEL has returned and every thread
has returned from an epoll_wait call that started after the
EPOLL_CTL_DEL returns, then the data structure can be safely freed.
In pseudocode:
delete(fd, pdata) {
pdata->dead = true;
EPOLL_CTL_DEL(fd);
rcu_call(delete pdata);
}
wait() {
epoll_wait;
for each event pdata {
if (pdata->gone) continue;
process the event;
}
rcu_this_is_a_grace_period();
}
Of course, these are not normal grace periods and would need to be
tracked separately. (The optimal data structure to do this without
killing scalability is not obvious. urcu presumably implements such a
thing.)
Am I right?Equip each thread with a) an id or something else that lets each thread refer to "the next" thread; b) a lists of "items waiting to be deleted". Then the deleting thread adds the item being deleted to the first thread's list. Before executing epoll_wait, thread K empties its list and passes the buck, appending the old contents of its list to that of thread K+1. This is an O(1) operation no matter how many items are being deleted; only Thread N, being the last thread, actually has to go through the list and delete the items. The lists need to be protected by a mutex, but contention should really be rare since there are just two writers. Note that each thread only needs to hold one mutex at a time, and the deletion loop does not need to happen with the mutex held at all, so there's no worries of "cascading" waits on the mutexes. Compared to http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1311457, you get rid of the per-item mutex and the operations that have to be done with the (now per-thread) mutex held remain pretty trivial. Paolo