Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:18:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
Reply-To: root@chaos.analogic.com
To: John Muir <muirj@nortelnetworks.com>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: poll() in 2.6 and beyond
In-Reply-To: <404521B2.2030504@americasm01.nt.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0403022006250.9695@chaos>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0403021817050.9351@chaos> <404521B2.2030504@americasm01.nt.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3712
Lines: 84

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, John Muir wrote:

> Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > > Could you maybe go back to the initial report, which is that after
> > > poll() gets wrong status? It's nice to argue about where the process
> > > waits, but the issue is if it gets the same status with 2.4 and 2.6,
> > and
> > > if not which one should be fixed.
> > >
> > > Richard: can you show this with a small demo program? I assume you
> > > didn't find this just by reading code ;-)
> >
> > Yes. The code I attached earlier shows that the poll() in a driver
> > gets called (correctly), then it calls poll_wait(). Unfortunately
> > the call to poll_wait() returns immediately so that the return
> > value from the driver's poll() is whatever it was before some
> > event occurred that the driver was going to signal with
> > wake_up_interruptible().
> >
> The documentation referred to earlier
> (http://www.xml.com/ldd/chapter/book/ch05.html#t3) clearly states that
> the poll function implementation for a device should:
> "1. Call /poll_wait/ on one or more wait queues that could indicate a
> change in the poll status.
> 2. Return a bit mask describing operations that could be immediately
> performed without blocking."
> What happens is if your device has data ready RIGHT NOW (without any
> waiting), the information regarding that is returned.
>
> Now, if you look closely at the implementation of do_poll(), it will
> loop forever until any device returns that data is available (or the
> timeout occurs). After data is available, do_pollfd() function no longer
> adds the devices to the wait queue.
>
> What this means is that the first time through each device is added to
> the wait queue. After the process is woken up from schedule_timeout (or
> the timeout occurs), then it will loop through each device again to
> either add that device to the wait queue again, or determine that there
> is data ready to be read/written, or an error or whatever. do_pollfd()
> then increases count, and do_poll() exits from it's loop (and wait
> queues are cleaned-up in sys_poll()).
>
> So, yes, the poll_wait() returns immediately, it should not wait, and
> your poll method should return the device's CURRENT status in the poll
> mask. Don't worry, because when your device wakes the waiting process
> when data is ready, the device's poll function is called again and you
> again can return the CURRENT status.
>

Well the device's poll function isn't getting called the second time
with 2.6.0. I never checked it in 2.4.x because it always worked.
This problem occurs in a driver that only returns the fact that
one event occurred. When it failed to report the event when built
with a newer kernel, I added diagnostics which showed that the
poll in the driver was only called once --and that the return from
poll_wait happened immediately.

So, if the poll_wait isn't a wait-function, but just some add-wakeup
to the queue function, then its name probably should have been
changed when it changed. At one time it did, truly, wait until
it was awakened with wake_up_interruptible.

> Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding this, but quite frankly,
> poll_wait CANNOT wait, for the very reasons described in previous posts:
> when multiple devices are polled, then poll_wait is called FOR EACH DEVICE.
>
> Cheers,
>
> ..John
>
>

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
            Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/