Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221030220203.31210-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20221030220203.31210-7-axboe@kernel.dk>
 <Y2rUsi5yrhDZYpf/@google.com> <4764dcbf-c735-bbe2-b60e-b64c789ffbe6@kernel.dk>
 <CA+FuTSdawNGXhW0DEf0-R6--1bDh7qByO=ViD_h=BfRe3XaFkw@mail.gmail.com> <33832500-ddf3-dc2b-a765-046d46031991@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <33832500-ddf3-dc2b-a765-046d46031991@kernel.dk>
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:44:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+FuTScvn016nJAYHDuu0Y4vq6n7mbx96_NiYF75HfYQrRjPKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] eventpoll: add support for min-wait
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 5:30 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 11/8/22 3:25 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>> This would be similar to the approach that willemb@google.com used
> >>> when introducing epoll_pwait2.
> >>
> >> I have, see other replies in this thread, notably the ones with Stefan
> >> today. Happy to do that, and my current branch does split out the ctl
> >> addition from the meat of the min_wait support for this reason. Can't
> >> seem to find a great way to do it, as we'd need to move to a struct
> >> argument for this as epoll_pwait2() is already at max arguments for a
> >> syscall. Suggestions more than welcome.
> >
> > Expect an array of two timespecs as fourth argument?
>
> Unfortunately even epoll_pwait2() doesn't have any kind of flags
> argument to be able to do tricks like that... But I guess we could do
> that with epoll_pwait3(), but it'd be an extra indirection for the copy
> at that point (copy array of pointers, copy pointer if not NULL), which
> would be unfortunate. I'd hate to have to argue that API to anyone, let
> alone Linus, when pushing the series.

I did mean for a new syscall epoll_pwait3. But not an array of
pointers, an array of structs. The second arg is then mandatory for
this epoll_pwait_minwait variant of the syscall.

It would indeed have been nicer to be able to do this in epoll_pwait2
based on a flag. It's just doubling the size in copy_from_user in
get_timespec64.

Btw, when I added epoll_pwait2, there was a reasonable request to
also update the manpages and add a basic test to
tools/testing/selftests/filesystems/epoll. That is some extra work with
a syscall based approach.