From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] pipe: only enable the extra wake_up(rd_wait) when epoll is actually used
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:58:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <amNvebqiG2fH0W_L@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <amIu5WWgTNkdvqIz@redhat.com>
On 07/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> OK, sashiko has some concerns
>
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/amIqmbbZx3NlzUsX%40redhat.com
Let me quote:
Does skipping this wakeup for non-epoll consumers break io_uring?
Applications polling pipes via io_uring do not attach an eventpoll context,
so pipe->epoll_usage will be false. If a writer writes to an empty pipe,
io_uring receives the wakeup.
If the writer then writes a second chunk before the first is drained,
anon_pipe_write() observes was_empty == false and
pipe_get_epoll_usage() == false, skipping the waitqueue wakeup.
Could this cause io_uring to miss events and hang permanently, waiting
for a CQE that will never be emitted for the new data?
and I am starting to think sashiko is right (damn as always ;) and this
patch does affect/break io_uring.
Jens, could you confirm? If yes, we need to update the comments in pipe.c
(I've attached 1/1 at the end, so that you can see what this patch does)
I know nothing about io_uring and io_uring/poll.c is not trivial to say at
least ;) please check my understanding.
It seems that IORING_OP_POLL_ADD / IORING_POLL_ADD_MULTI is edge-triggered
by default! Like EPOLL_CTL_ADD / EPOLLET.
This means that io_uring depends on the "nasty semantics" too, io_poll_wake()
path should add the task work which calls io_req_post_cqe() every time the new
data arrives, even if the pipe was not empty.
Strange...
And. io_poll_parse_events() doesn't set EPOLLET if IORING_POLL_ADD_LEVEL, but
how is it possible to use IORING_POLL_ADD_LEVEL? io_poll_add_prep() only allows
IORING_POLL_ADD_MULTI in flags? OK, I don't understand this code anyway...
Oleg.
---
Subject: [PATCH] pipe: only enable the extra wake_up(rd_wait) when epoll is actually used
pipe_poll() unconditionally sets poll_usage on the first call, forcing
anon_pipe_write() to wake up readers on every write even if the pipe was
not empty. But this is only needed for epoll's "nasty semantics"; poll()
and select() users pay for it for no reason.
Rename it to epoll_usage, and only set it when the caller is actually
using epoll on the read side of the pipe.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
fs/pipe.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h | 6 ++++--
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/pipe.c b/fs/pipe.c
index 32140cb00d7e..b45b4b8d0b0b 100644
--- a/fs/pipe.c
+++ b/fs/pipe.c
@@ -357,6 +357,23 @@ static inline unsigned int pipe_update_tail(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
return tail;
}
+static void pipe_set_epoll_usage(struct file *filp, struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_EPOLL
+ if ((filp->f_mode & FMODE_READ) && filp->f_ep &&
+ unlikely(!READ_ONCE(pipe->epoll_usage)))
+ WRITE_ONCE(pipe->epoll_usage, true);
+#endif
+}
+
+static bool pipe_get_epoll_usage(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_EPOLL
+ return pipe->epoll_usage;
+#endif
+ return false;
+}
+
static ssize_t
anon_pipe_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
{
@@ -689,7 +706,7 @@ anon_pipe_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
* Epoll nonsensically wants a wakeup whether the pipe
* was already empty or not.
*/
- if (was_empty || pipe->poll_usage)
+ if (was_empty || pipe_get_epoll_usage(pipe))
wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->rd_wait, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
if (wake_next_writer)
@@ -761,9 +778,7 @@ pipe_poll(struct file *filp, poll_table *wait)
union pipe_index idx;
/* Epoll has some historical nasty semantics, this enables them */
- if (unlikely(!READ_ONCE(pipe->poll_usage)))
- WRITE_ONCE(pipe->poll_usage, true);
-
+ pipe_set_epoll_usage(filp, pipe);
/*
* Reading pipe state only -- no need for acquiring the semaphore.
*
diff --git a/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h b/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h
index 7f6a92ac9704..d06da9bad3a8 100644
--- a/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h
+++ b/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ union pipe_index {
* @files: number of struct file referring this pipe (protected by ->i_lock)
* @r_counter: reader counter
* @w_counter: writer counter
- * @poll_usage: is this pipe used for epoll, which has crazy wakeups?
+ * @epoll_usage: is this pipe used for epoll, which has crazy wakeups?
* @fasync_readers: reader side fasync
* @fasync_writers: writer side fasync
* @bufs: the circular array of pipe buffers
@@ -95,7 +95,9 @@ struct pipe_inode_info {
unsigned int files;
unsigned int r_counter;
unsigned int w_counter;
- bool poll_usage;
+#ifdef CONFIG_EPOLL
+ bool epoll_usage;
+#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_WATCH_QUEUE
bool note_loss;
#endif
--
2.52.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-24 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-23 14:51 [PATCH 0/1] pipe: only enable the extra wake_up(rd_wait) when epoll is actually used Oleg Nesterov
2026-07-23 14:52 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2026-07-23 16:41 ` Mateusz Guzik
2026-07-23 15:10 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2026-07-24 13:58 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2026-07-24 14:43 ` Mateusz Guzik
2026-07-24 14:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=amNvebqiG2fH0W_L@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.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=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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox