Re: epoll design problems with common fork/exec patterns

Marc Lehmann
2007-10-27T08:49:21Z

On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 10:23:17AM +0200, Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
> > In this case, the parent process works fine until the child closes fds,
> > after which the fds become unarmed in the parent too. This works as
>
> I have no idea what exact problem you have.

Well, I explained it rather succinctly, I think. If you tell me whats unclear
I can explain...

> But if the child closes some
> file descriptor that were 'cloned' at fork() time, this only decrements a
> refcount, and definitely should not close it for the 'parent'.

It doesn't. It removes it from the epoll set, though, so the parent will not
receive events for that fd anymore.

> I have some apps that are happily using epoll() and fork()/exec() and have

The problem I described is fork/close/exec. close being the explicit
syscall.

> no problem at all. I usually use O_CLOEXEC so that all close() are done at
> exec() time without having to do it in a loop. epoll continues to work as
> expected in the parent process.

This is because epoll doesn't behave like documented: It removes the fd
from the parents epoll set only on an explicit close() syscall, not on an
implicit close from exec.

> >fd sets. This would explain the behaviour above. Unfortunately (or
> >fortunately?) this is not what happens: when the fds are being closed by
> >exec or exit, the fds do not get removed from the epoll set.
>
> at exec() (granted CLOEXEC is asserted) or exit() time, only the refcount
> of each file is decremented. Only if their refcount becomes NULL, files are
> then removed from epoll set.

Yes. But thats obviously not the only way to close fds.

> >Is epoll really designed to be so incompatible with the most commno fork
> >patterns? Shouldn't epoll do refcounting, as is commonly done under
> >Unix? As the fd space is not shared between rpocesses, why does epoll
> >try? Shouldn't the epoll information be copied just like the fd table
> >itself, memory, and other resources?
>
> Too many questions here, showing lack of understanding.

You already said you don't the problem. No need to get insulting :(

> epoll definitly is not useless. It is used on major and critical apps.
> You certainly missed something.

Well, it behaves like documented, which is the problem. You admit you
don't understand the problem or the documentation, so again, no need to
insult me.

> Please provide some code to illustrate one exact problem you have.

// assume there is an open epoll set that listens for events on fd 5
if (fork () = 0)
{
close (5);
// fd 5 is now removed from the epoll set of the parent.
_exit (0);
}

--
The choice of a
-----==- _GNU_
----==-- _ generation Marc Lehmann
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ pcg@goof.com
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / http://schmorp.de/
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE