Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:22:00 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com>, linux-aio@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/32] fs: introduce new ->get_poll_head and ->poll_mask
 methods
Message-ID: <20180111052200.GJ13338@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180110155853.32348-1-hch@lst.de>
 <20180110155853.32348-4-hch@lst.de>
 <20180110210416.GH13338@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180110210416.GH13338@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:04:16PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 04:58:24PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > ->get_poll_head returns the waitqueue that the poll operation is going
> > to sleep on.  Note that this means we can only use a single waitqueue
> > for the poll, unlike some current drivers that use two waitqueues for
> > different events.  But now that we have keyed wakeups and heavily use
> > those for poll there aren't that many good reason left to keep the
> > multiple waitqueues, and if there are any ->poll is still around, the
> > driver just won't support aio poll.
> 
> There's another problem with that - currently ->poll() may tell you "sod off,
> I've got nothing for you to sleep on, eat your POLLHUP|POLLERR|something
> and don't pester me again".  With your API that's hard to express sanely.
> 
> Another piece of fun related to that is handling of disconnects in general -
> 
> static __poll_t proc_reg_poll(struct file *file, struct poll_table_struct *pts)
> {
>         struct proc_dir_entry *pde = PDE(file_inode(file));
>         __poll_t rv = DEFAULT_POLLMASK;
>         __poll_t (*poll)(struct file *, struct poll_table_struct *);
>         if (use_pde(pde)) {
>                 poll = pde->proc_fops->poll;
>                 if (poll)
>                         rv = poll(file, pts);
>                 unuse_pde(pde);
>         }
>         return rv;
> }
> 
> and similar in sysfs.  
> 
> Note, BTW, the places like wait->_qproc = NULL; in do_select() and its ilk.
> Some of them are "don't bother putting me on any queues, I won't be sleeping
> anyway".  Some are "I'm already on all queues I care about, I'm going to
> sleep now and the query everything again once woken up".  It would be nice
> to have the method splitup reflect that kind of logics...
> 
> What about af_alg_poll(), BTW?  Looks like you've missed that one...
> 
> Another thing: IMO file_can_poll() should use FMODE_CAN_POLL - either as
> "true if set, otherwise check ->f_op and set accordingly" or set in
> do_dentry_open() and just check it in file_can_poll()...

Whee...  The very first ->poll() instance in alphabetic order on pathnames:
in arch/cris/arch-v10/drivers/gpio.c

static __poll_t gpio_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
{
        __poll_t mask = 0;
        struct gpio_private *priv = file->private_data;
        unsigned long data;
        unsigned long flags;

        spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_lock, flags);

        poll_wait(file, &priv->alarm_wq, wait);

IOW, we are doing poll_wait() (== possible GFP_KERNEL __get_free_page()) under
a spinlock...