eventpoll: Fix epoll_wait() report false negative
ep_events_available() checks for available events by looking at
ep->rdllist and ep_is_scanning(). However, this is done without a lock
and can report false negative if ep_start_scan() or ep_done_scan() are
executed by another task concurrently. For example:
_________________________________________________________________________
|ep_start_scan()
| list_splice_init(&ep->rdllist, ...)
ep_events_available() |
!list_empty_careful(&ep->rdllist)|
|| ep_is_scanning(ep) |
| ep_enter_scan(ep)
___________________________________|_____________________________________
Another example:
_________________________________________________________________________
ep_events_available() |
|ep_start_scan()
| list_splice_init(&ep->rdllist, ...)
| ep_enter_scan(ep)
!list_empty_careful(&ep->rdllist)|
|ep_done_scan()
| ep_exit_scan(ep)
| list_splice(..., &ep->rdllist)
|| ep_is_scanning(ep) |
___________________________________|_____________________________________
In the above examples, ep_events_available() sees no event despite
events being available. In case epoll_wait() is called with timeout=0,
epoll_wait() will wrongly return "no event" to user.
Introduce a sequence lock to resolve this issue.
Measuring the time consumption of 10 million loop iterations doing
epoll_wait(), the following performance drop is observed:
timeout #event before after diff
0ms 0 3727ms 3974ms +6.6%
0ms 1 8099ms 9134ms +13%
1ms 1 13525ms 13586ms +0.45%
Considering the use case of epoll_wait() (wait for events, do something
with the events, repeat), it should only contribute to a small portion of
user's CPU consumption. Therefore this performance drop is not alarming.
Fixes: c5a282e9635e ("fs/epoll: reduce the scope of wq lock in epoll_wait()")
Suggested-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/4363cd8e34a21d4f0d257be1b33e84dc25030fdf.1780422138.git.namcao@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner (Amutable) <brauner@kernel.org>