From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pipe: only enable the extra wake_up(rd_wait) for EPOLLET consumers
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 15:55:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <anCdyL7X_V4SBfNI@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <anCYWrlQEFd7I0xd@gmail.com>
On 08/03, Breno Leitao wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 02:46:25PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > + * Currently io_uring sets EPOLLET for multishot polls, so it gets the
> > + * same behaviour.
>
> I got the impression that Linus wanted the comment epoll-only, and
> wanted the io_uring case treated as something to remove, not to bless.
Well, perhaps I misunderstood Linus... but it seems he was fine with this
comment which I showed in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/am9an4HWPGaxmbcK@redhat.com/
And. This comment (and the test-case in the changelog) doesn't try to bless
the current behaviour, it only tries to document the "status quo".
Let me also quote my other reply to Linus:
> The only reason that ugly hack exists is because we did have that
> break user space. If we can get rid of th eugly hack for io_uring,
> that would only be a good thing.
Perhaps, I can't really comment. But it seems to me that in this case
it would make more sense to change the logic in io_uring/ rather than
in pipe_poll(). And this needs a separate change.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-03 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-03 12:46 [PATCH v4] pipe: only enable the extra wake_up(rd_wait) for EPOLLET consumers Oleg Nesterov
2026-08-03 13:32 ` Breno Leitao
2026-08-03 13:55 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2026-08-12 7:46 ` Christian Brauner
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=anCdyL7X_V4SBfNI@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=legion@kernel.org \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.