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.
next prev parent 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®