From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09362C4332F for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2022 16:17:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229691AbiLJQRS (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:17:18 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44452 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229529AbiLJQRR (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2022 11:17:17 -0500 Received: from 1wt.eu (wtarreau.pck.nerim.net [62.212.114.60]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6517AE68; Sat, 10 Dec 2022 08:17:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 2BAGHEWC022699; Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:17:14 +0100 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 17:17:14 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Jens Axboe Cc: Linus Torvalds , netdev , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Add support for epoll min wait time Message-ID: <20221210161714.GA22696@1wt.eu> References: <20221210155811.GA22540@1wt.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 09:05:02AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 12/10/22 8:58?AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Hi Jens, > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 08:36:11AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> Hi Linus, > >> > >> I've had this done for months and posted a few times, but little > >> attention has been received. > > > > I personally think this is particularly cool, for having faced the > > same needs in the past. I'm just wondering how long we'll avoid the > > need for marking certain FDs as urgent (i.e. for inter-thread wakeup) > > which would bypass the min delay. > > Thanks! No opinion on urgent fds, it's not something I have looked > into... We'll see over time anyway :-) > > This last patch fixes a bug introduced by the 5th one. Why not squash it > > instead of purposely introducing a bug then its fix ? Or maybe it was > > just overlooked when you sent the PR ? > > I didn't want to rebase it, so I just put the fix at the end. Not that > important imho, only issue there was an ltp case getting a wrong error > value. Hence didn't deem it important enough to warrant a rebase. OK. I tend to prefer making sure that a bisect session can never end up in the middle of a patch set for a reason other than a yet-undiscovered bug, that's why I was asking. Thanks, Willy