Hi Jason,
On 03/15/2016 08:32 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
On 03/14/2016 01:47 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
quoted
[Restoring CC, which I see I accidentally dropped, one iteration back.]
[...]
quoted
quoted
quoted
values in events yield an error. EPOLLEXCLUSIVE may be
used only in an EPOLL_CTL_ADD operation; attempts to
employ it with EPOLL_CTL_MOD yield an error. If
EPOLLEXCLUSIVE has set using epoll_ctl(2), then a subse‐
quent EPOLL_CTL_MOD on the same epfd, fd pair yields an
b>> error. An epoll_ctl(2) that specifies EPOLLEXCLUSIVE in
quoted
quoted
events and specifies the target file descriptor fd as an
epoll instance will likewise fail. The error in all of
these cases is EINVAL.
ERRORS
EINVAL An invalid event type was specified along with EPOLLEX‐
CLUSIVE in events.
EINVAL op was EPOLL_CTL_MOD and events included EPOLLEXCLUSIVE.
EINVAL op was EPOLL_CTL_MOD and the EPOLLEXCLUSIVE flag has
previously been applied to this epfd, fd pair.
EINVAL EPOLLEXCLUSIVE was specified in event and fd is refers
to an epoll instance.
Returning to the second sentence in this description:
When a wakeup event occurs and multiple epoll file descrip‐
tors are attached to the same target file using EPOLLEXCLU‐
SIVE, one or more of the epoll file descriptors will
receive an event with epoll_wait(2).
There is a point that is unclear to me: what does "target file" refer to?
Is it an open file description (aka open file table entry) or an inode?
I suspect the former, but it was not clear in your original text.
So from epoll's perspective, the wakeups are associated with a 'wait
queue'. So if the open() and subsequent EPOLL_CTL_ADD (which is done via
file->poll()) results in adding to the same 'wait queue' then we will
get 'exclusive' wakeup behavior.
So in general, I think the answer here is that its associated with the
inode (I coudn't say with 100% certainty without really looking at all
file->poll() implementations). Certainly, with the 'FIFO' example below,
the two scenarios will have the same behavior with respect to
EPOLLEXCLUSIVE.
So, in both scenarios, *one or more* processes will get a wakeup?
(I'll try to add something to the text to clarify the detail we're
discussing.)
Also, the 'non-exclusive' mode would be subject to the same question of
which wait queue is the epfd is associated with...
I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make here?
Cheers,
Michael
quoted
To make this point even clearer, here are two scenarios I'm thinking of.
In each case, we're talking of monitoring the read end of a FIFO.
===
Scenario 1:
We have three processes each of which
1. Creates an epoll instance
2. Opens the read end of the FIFO
3. Adds the read end of the FIFO to the epoll instance, specifying
EPOLLEXCLUSIVE
When input becomes available on the FIFO, how many processes
get a wakeup?
===
Scenario 3
A parent process opens the read end of a FIFO and then calls
fork() three times to create three children. Each child then:
1. Creates an epoll instance
2. Adds the read end of the FIFO to the epoll instance, specifying
EPOLLEXCLUSIVE
When input becomes available on the FIFO, how many processes
get a wakeup?
===
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html