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.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-03 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ 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]
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox