mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Li Yu <raise.sail@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davidel@xmailserver.org
Subject: Re: The thundering herd like problem when multi epolls on one fd
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:20:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1326547247.5287.19.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F116350.6090704@gmail.com>

Le samedi 14 janvier 2012 à 19:13 +0800, Li Yu a écrit :
> Hi, 
> 
> 	My buddy reported a thundering herd problem about using epoll 
> on TCP listen sockets. He said their usage like below:
> 
> 	1. sk = new tcp_listen_socket();
> 	2. create many child processes or threads.
> 	3. in new created processes (threads), use epoll API on listen
> sk to provide HTTP service.
> 
> 	Such using pattern means we have multi wait queues when 
> accepting one socket, and it is not exclusive waking up, so we get a 
> thundering herd like problem. And, so I heard many popular applications
> can use such pattern, which includes nginx, lighttpd, haproxy at least.

It is not very scalable. But we really lack a fanout mechanism to allow
better paralelism on accept(), its not a poll() vs select() vs epoll()
problem per se, but a generic problem.

> So should we change this waking up behavior to exclusive too ? 
> 

Certainly not.

> 	Below is a simple patch (tested and works) for epoll() to do it,
> of course, we also should fix select() and poll() syscalls if it is right.
> 
> 	Thanks.
> 
> Yu	
> 
> diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
> index 828e750..a3d6ab4 100644
> --- a/fs/eventpoll.c
> +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
> @@ -898,7 +899,7 @@ static void ep_ptable_queue_proc(struct file *file, wait_queue_head_t *whead,
>                 init_waitqueue_func_entry(&pwq->wait, ep_poll_callback);
>                 pwq->whead = whead;
>                 pwq->base = epi;
> -               add_wait_queue(whead, &pwq->wait);
> +               add_wait_queue_exclusive(whead, &pwq->wait);
>                 list_add_tail(&pwq->llink, &epi->pwqlist);
>                 epi->nwait++;
>         } else {
> --


What happens if the awaken thread does not consume the event, and prefer
to exit ?

If several threads are doing select()/poll()/epoll() on a shared fd,
they _all_ must be notified the fd is ready, as manpages claim.

Doing otherwise would require the prior consent of the user, using a
special flag for example, and documentation.



  reply	other threads:[~2012-01-14 13:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-14 11:13 Li Yu
2012-01-14 13:20 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2012-01-14 15:57   ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2012-01-15 15:41 Li Yu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1326547247.5287.19.camel@edumazet-laptop \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=raise.sail@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®