How does epoll's EPOLLEXCLUSIVE mode interact with level-triggering?

Question

Suppose the following series of events occurs:

• We set up a listening socket
• Thread A blocks waiting for the listening socket to become readable, using

Answer 1

Edited (original answer is after the code used for testing)

To make sure things are clear, I'll go over EPOLLEXCLUSIVE as it relates to edge triggered events (EPOLLET) as well as level-triggered events, to show how these effect expected behavior.

As you well know:

• Edge Triggered: Once you set EPOLLET, events are triggered only if they change the state of the fd - meaning that only the first event is triggered and no new events will get triggered until that event is fully handled.

  This design is explicitly meant to prevent epoll_wait from returning due to an event that is in the process of being handled (i.e., when new data arrives while the EPOLLIN was already raised but read hadn't been called or not all of the data was read).

  The edge-triggered event rule is simple all same-type (i.e. EPOLLIN) events are merged until all available data was processed.

  In the case of a listening socket, the EPOLLIN event won't be triggered again until all existing listen "backlog" sockets have been accepted using accept.

  In the case of a byte stream, new events won't be triggered until all the the available bytes have been read from the stream (the buffer was emptied).

• Level Triggered: On the other hand, level triggered events will behave closer to how legacy select (or poll) operates, allowing epoll to be used with older code.

  The event-merger rule is more complex: events of the same type are only merged if no one is waiting for an event (no one is waiting for epoll_wait to return), or if multiple events happen before epoll_wait can return... otherwise any event causes epoll_wait to return.

  In the case of a listening socket, the EPOLLIN event will be triggered every time a client connects... unless no one is waiting for epoll_wait to return, in which case the next call for epoll_wait will return immediately and all the EPOLLIN events that occurred during that time will have been merged into a single event.

  In the case of a byte stream, new events will be triggered every time new data comes in... unless, of course, no one is waiting for epoll_wait to return, in which case the next call will return immediately for all the data that arrive util epoll_wait returned (even if it arrived in different chunks / events).

• Exclusive return: The EPOLLEXCLUSIVE flag is used to prevent the "thundering heard" behavior, so only a single epoll_wait caller is woken up for each fd wake-up event.

  As I pointed out before, for edge-triggered states, an fd wake-up event is a change in the fd state. So all EPOLLIN events will be raised until all data was read (the listening socket's backlog was emptied).

  On the other hand, for level triggered events, each EPOLLIN will invoke a wake up event. If no one is waiting, these events will be merged.

Following the example in your question:

• For level triggered events: every time a client connects, a single thread will return from epoll_wait... BUT, if two more clients were to connect while both threads were busy accepting the first two clients, these EPOLLIN events would merge into a single event and the next call to epoll_wait will return immediately with that merged event.

  In the context of the example given in the question, thread B is expected to "wake up" due to epoll_wait returning.

  In this case, both threads will "race" towards accept.

  However, this doesn't defeat the EPOLLEXCLUSIVE directive or intent.

  The EPOLLEXCLUSIVE directive is meant to prevent the "thundering heard" phenomenon. In this case, two threads are racing to accept two connections. Each thread can (presumably) call accept safely, with no errors. If three threads were used, the third would keep on sleeping.

  If the EPOLLEXCLUSIVE weren't used, all the epoll_wait threads would have been woken up whenever a connection was available, meaning that as soon as the first connection arrived, both threads would have been racing to accept a single connection (resulting in a possible error for one of them).

• For edge triggered events: only one thread is expected to receive the "wake up" call. That thread is expected to accept all waiting connections (empty the listen "backlog"). No more EPOLLIN events will be raised for that socket until the backlog is emptied.

The same applies to readable sockets and pipes. The thread that was woken up is expected to deal with all the readable data. This prevents to waiting threads from attempting to read the data concurrently and experiencing file lock race conditions.

I would recommend (and this is what I do) to set the listening socket to non-blocking mode and calling accept in a loop until an EAGAIN (or EWOULDBLOCK) error is raised, indicating that the backlog is empty. There is no way to avoid the risk of events being merged. The same is true for reading from a socket.

Testing this with code:

I wrote a simple test, with some sleep commands and blocking sockets. Client sockets are initiated only after both threads start waiting for epoll.

Client thread initiation is delayed, so client 1 and client 2 start a second apart.

Once a server thread is woken up, it will sleep for a second (allowing the second client to do it's thing) before calling accept. Maybe the servers should sleep a little more, but it seems close enough to manage the scheduler without resorting to conditional variables.

Here are the results of my test code (which might be a mess, I'm not the best person for test design)...

On Ubuntu 16.10, which supports EPOLLEXCLUSIVE, the test results show that the listening threads are woken up one after the other, in response to the clients. In the example in the question, thread B is woken up.

Test address: <null>:8000
Server thread 2 woke up with 1 events
Server thread 2 will sleep for a second, to let things happen.
client number 1 connected
Server thread 1 woke up with 1 events
Server thread 1 will sleep for a second, to let things happen.
client number 2 connected
Server thread 2 accepted a connection and saying hello.
client 1: Hello World - from server thread 2.
Server thread 1 accepted a connection and saying hello.
client 2: Hello World - from server thread 1.

To compare with Ubuntu 16.04 (without EPOLLEXCLUSIVE support), than both threads are woken up for the first connection. Since I use blocking sockets, the second thread hangs on accept until client # 2 connects.

main.c:178:2: warning: #warning EPOLLEXCLUSIVE undeclared, test is futile [-Wcpp]
 #warning EPOLLEXCLUSIVE undeclared, test is futile
  ^
Test address: <null>:8000
Server thread 1 woke up with 1 events
Server thread 1 will sleep for a second, to let things happen.
Server thread 2 woke up with 1 events
Server thread 2 will sleep for a second, to let things happen.
client number 1 connected
Server thread 1 accepted a connection and saying hello.
client 1: Hello World - from server thread 1.
client number 2 connected
Server thread 2 accepted a connection and saying hello.
client 2: Hello World - from server thread 2.

For one more comparison, the results for level triggered kqueue show that both threads are awoken for the first connection. Since I use blocking sockets, the second thread hangs on accept until client # 2 connects.

Test address: <null>:8000
client number 1 connected
Server thread 2 woke up with 1 events
Server thread 1 woke up with 1 events
Server thread 2 will sleep for a second, to let things happen.
Server thread 1 will sleep for a second, to let things happen.
Server thread 2 accepted a connection and saying hello.
client 1: Hello World - from server thread 2.
client number 2 connected
Server thread 1 accepted a connection and saying hello.
client 2: Hello World - from server thread 1.

My test code was (sorry for the lack of comments and the messy code, I wasn't writing for future maintenance):

#ifndef _GNU_SOURCE
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#endif

#define ADD_EPOLL_OPTION 0 // define as EPOLLET or 0

#include <arpa/inet.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <netdb.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <sys/resource.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <unistd.h>

#if !defined(__linux__) && !defined(__CYGWIN__)
#include <sys/event.h>
#define reactor_epoll 0
#else
#define reactor_epoll 1
#include <sys/epoll.h>
#include <sys/timerfd.h>
#endif

int sock_listen(const char *address, const char *port);
void *listen_threard(void *arg);
void *client_thread(void *arg);
int server_fd;
char const *address = NULL;
char const *port = "8000";

int main(int argc, char const *argv[]) {
  if (argc == 2) {
    port = argv[1];
  } else if (argc == 3) {
    port = argv[2];
    address = argv[1];
  }
  fprintf(stderr, "Test address: %s:%s\n", address ? address : "<null>", port);
  server_fd = sock_listen(address, port);
  /* code */
  pthread_t threads[4];

  for (size_t i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
    if (pthread_create(threads + i, NULL, listen_threard, (void *)i))
      perror("couldn't initiate server thread"), exit(-1);
  }
  for (size_t i = 2; i < 4; i++) {
    sleep(1);
    if (pthread_create(threads + i, NULL, client_thread, (void *)i))
      perror("couldn't initiate client thread"), exit(-1);
  }
  // join only server threads.
  for (size_t i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
    pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
  }
  close(server_fd);
  sleep(1);
  return 0;
}

/**
Sets a socket to non blocking state.
*/
inline int sock_set_non_block(int fd) // Thanks to Bjorn Reese
{
/* If they have O_NONBLOCK, use the Posix way to do it */
#if defined(O_NONBLOCK)
  /* Fixme: O_NONBLOCK is defined but broken on SunOS 4.1.x and AIX 3.2.5. */
  int flags;
  if (-1 == (flags = fcntl(fd, F_GETFL, 0)))
    flags = 0;
  // printf("flags initial value was %d\n", flags);
  return fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, flags | O_NONBLOCK);
#else
  /* Otherwise, use the old way of doing it */
  static int flags = 1;
  return ioctl(fd, FIOBIO, &flags);
#endif
}

/* open a listenning socket */
int sock_listen(const char *address, const char *port) {
  int srvfd;
  // setup the address
  struct addrinfo hints;
  struct addrinfo *servinfo;       // will point to the results
  memset(&hints, 0, sizeof hints); // make sure the struct is empty
  hints.ai_family = AF_UNSPEC;     // don't care IPv4 or IPv6
  hints.ai_socktype = SOCK_STREAM; // TCP stream sockets
  hints.ai_flags = AI_PASSIVE;     // fill in my IP for me
  if (getaddrinfo(address, port, &hints, &servinfo)) {
    perror("addr err");
    return -1;
  }
  // get the file descriptor
  srvfd =
      socket(servinfo->ai_family, servinfo->ai_socktype, servinfo->ai_protocol);
  if (srvfd <= 0) {
    perror("socket err");
    freeaddrinfo(servinfo);
    return -1;
  }
  // // keep the server socket blocking for the test.
  // // make sure the socket is non-blocking
  // if (sock_set_non_block(srvfd) < 0) {
  //   perror("couldn't set socket as non blocking! ");
  //   freeaddrinfo(servinfo);
  //   close(srvfd);
  //   return -1;
  // }

  // avoid the "address taken"
  {
    int optval = 1;
    setsockopt(srvfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &optval, sizeof(optval));
  }
  // bind the address to the socket
  {
    int bound = 0;
    for (struct addrinfo *p = servinfo; p != NULL; p = p->ai_next) {
      if (!bind(srvfd, p->ai_addr, p->ai_addrlen))
        bound = 1;
    }

    if (!bound) {
      // perror("bind err");
      freeaddrinfo(servinfo);
      close(srvfd);
      return -1;
    }
  }
  freeaddrinfo(servinfo);
  // listen in
  if (listen(srvfd, SOMAXCONN) < 0) {
    perror("couldn't start listening");
    close(srvfd);
    return -1;
  }
  return srvfd;
}
/* will start listenning, sleep for 5 seconds, then accept all the backlog and
 * finish */
void *listen_threard(void *arg) {

  int epoll_fd;
  ssize_t event_count;
#if reactor_epoll

#ifndef EPOLLEXCLUSIVE
#warning EPOLLEXCLUSIVE undeclared, test is futile
#define EPOLLEXCLUSIVE 0
#endif
  // create the epoll wait fd
  epoll_fd = epoll_create1(0);
  if (epoll_fd < 0)
    perror("couldn't create epoll fd"), exit(1);
  // add the server fd to the epoll watchlist
  {
    struct epoll_event chevent = {0};
    chevent.data.ptr = (void *)((uintptr_t)server_fd);
    chevent.events =
        EPOLLOUT | EPOLLIN | EPOLLERR | EPOLLEXCLUSIVE | ADD_EPOLL_OPTION;
    epoll_ctl(epoll_fd, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, server_fd, &chevent);
  }
  // wait with epoll
  struct epoll_event events[10];
  event_count = epoll_wait(epoll_fd, events, 10, 5000);
#else
  // testing on BSD, use kqueue
  epoll_fd = kqueue();
  if (epoll_fd < 0)
    perror("couldn't create kqueue fd"), exit(1);
  // add the server fd to the kqueue watchlist
  {
    struct kevent chevent[2];
    EV_SET(chevent, server_fd, EVFILT_READ, EV_ADD | EV_ENABLE, 0, 0,
           (void *)((uintptr_t)server_fd));
    EV_SET(chevent + 1, server_fd, EVFILT_WRITE, EV_ADD | EV_ENABLE, 0, 0,
           (void *)((uintptr_t)server_fd));
    kevent(epoll_fd, chevent, 2, NULL, 0, NULL);
  }
  // wait with kqueue
  static struct timespec reactor_timeout = {.tv_sec = 5, .tv_nsec = 0};
  struct kevent events[10];
  event_count = kevent(epoll_fd, NULL, 0, events, 10, &reactor_timeout);
#endif

  close(epoll_fd);

  if (event_count <= 0) {
    fprintf(stderr, "Server thread %lu wakeup no events / error\n",
            (size_t)arg + 1);
    perror("errno ");
    return NULL;
  }

  fprintf(stderr, "Server thread %lu woke up with %lu events\n",
          (size_t)arg + 1, event_count);
  fprintf(stderr,
          "Server thread %lu will sleep for a second, to let things happen.\n",
          (size_t)arg + 1);
  sleep(1);
  int connfd;
  struct sockaddr_storage client_addr;
  socklen_t client_addrlen = sizeof client_addr;
  /* accept up all connections. we're non-blocking, -1 == no more connections */
  if ((connfd = accept(server_fd, (struct sockaddr *)&client_addr,
                       &client_addrlen)) >= 0) {
    fprintf(stderr,
            "Server thread %lu accepted a connection and saying hello.\n",
            (size_t)arg + 1);
    if (write(connfd, arg ? "Hello World - from server thread 2."
                          : "Hello World - from server thread 1.",
              35) < 35)
      perror("server write failed");
    close(connfd);
  } else {
    fprintf(stderr, "Server thread %lu failed to accept a connection",
            (size_t)arg + 1);
    perror(": ");
  }
  return NULL;
}

void *client_thread(void *arg) {

  int fd;
  // setup the address
  struct addrinfo hints;
  struct addrinfo *addrinfo;       // will point to the results
  memset(&hints, 0, sizeof hints); // make sure the struct is empty
  hints.ai_family = AF_UNSPEC;     // don't care IPv4 or IPv6
  hints.ai_socktype = SOCK_STREAM; // TCP stream sockets
  hints.ai_flags = AI_PASSIVE;     // fill in my IP for me
  if (getaddrinfo(address, port, &hints, &addrinfo)) {
    perror("client couldn't initiate address");
    return NULL;
  }
  // get the file descriptor
  fd =
      socket(addrinfo->ai_family, addrinfo->ai_socktype, addrinfo->ai_protocol);
  if (fd <= 0) {
    perror("client couldn't create socket");
    freeaddrinfo(addrinfo);
    return NULL;
  }
  // // // Leave the socket blocking for the test.
  // // make sure the socket is non-blocking
  // if (sock_set_non_block(fd) < 0) {
  //   freeaddrinfo(addrinfo);
  //   close(fd);
  //   return -1;
  // }

  if (connect(fd, addrinfo->ai_addr, addrinfo->ai_addrlen) < 0 &&
      errno != EINPROGRESS) {
    fprintf(stderr, "client number %lu FAILED\n", (size_t)arg - 1);
    perror("client connect failure");
    close(fd);
    freeaddrinfo(addrinfo);
    return NULL;
  }
  freeaddrinfo(addrinfo);
  fprintf(stderr, "client number %lu connected\n", (size_t)arg - 1);
  char buffer[128];
  if (read(fd, buffer, 35) < 35) {
    perror("client: read error");
    close(fd);
  } else {
    buffer[35] = 0;
    fprintf(stderr, "client %lu: %s\n", (size_t)arg - 1, buffer);
    close(fd);
  }
  return NULL;
}

P.S.

As a final recommendation, I would consider having no more than a single thread and a single epoll fd per process. This way the "thundering heard" is a non-issue and EPOLLEXCLUSIVE (which is still very new and isn't widely supported) can be disregarded... the only "thundering heard" this still exposes is for the limited amount of shared sockets, where the race condition might be good for load balancing.

---

Original Answer

I'm not sure I understand the confusion, so I'll go over EPOLLET and EPOLLEXCLUSIVE to show their combined expected behavior.

As you well know:

• Once you set EPOLLET (edge triggered), events are triggered on fd state changes rather than fd events.

  This design is explicitly meant to prevent epoll_wait from returning due to an event that is in the process of being handled (i.e., when new data arrives while the EPOLLIN was already raised but read hadn't been called or not all of the data was read).

  In the case of a listening socket, the EPOLLIN event won't be triggered again until all existing listen "backlog" sockets have been accepted using accept.

• The EPOLLEXCLUSIVE flag is used to prevent the "thundering heard" behavior, so only a single epoll_wait caller is woken up for each fd wake-up event.

  As I pointed out before, for edge-triggered states, an fd wake-up event is a change in the fd state. So all EPOLLIN events will be raised until all data was read (the listening socket's backlog was emptied).

When merging these behaviors, and following the example in your question, only one thread is expected to receive the "wake up" call. That thread is expected to accept all waiting connections (empty the listen "backlog") or no more EPOLLIN events will be raised for that socket.

The same applies to readable sockets and pipes. The thread that was woken up is expected to deal with all the readable data. This prevents to waiting threads from attempting to read the data concurrently and experiencing file lock race conditions.

I would recommend that you consider avoiding the edge triggered events if you mean to call accept only once for each epoll_wait wake-up event. Regardless of using EPOLLEXCLUSIVE, you run the risk of not emptying the existing "backlog", so that no new wake-up events will be raised.

Alternatively, I would recommend (and this is what I do) to set the listening socket to non-blocking mode and calling accept in a loop until and an EAGAIN (or EWOULDBLOCK) error is raised, indicating that the backlog is empty.

---

EDIT 1: Level Triggered Events

It seems, as Nathaniel pointed out in the comment, that I totally misunderstood the question... I guess I'm used to EPOLLET being the misunderstood element.

So, what happens with normal, level-triggered, events (NOT EPOLLET)?

Well... the expected behavior is the exact mirror image (opposite) of edge triggered events.

For listenning sockets, the epoll_wait is expected return whenever a new connected is available, whether accept was called after a previous event or not.

Events are only "merged" if no-one is waiting with epoll_wait... in which case the next call for epoll_wait will return immediately.

In the context of the example given in the question, thread B is expected to "wake up" due to epoll_wait returning.

In this case, both threads will "race" towards accept.

However, this doesn't defeat the EPOLLEXCLUSIVE directive or intent.

The EPOLLEXCLUSIVE directive is meant to prevent the "thundering heard" phenomenon. In this case, two threads are racing to accept two connections. Each thread can (presumably) call accept safely, with no errors. If three threads were used, the third would keep on sleeping.

If the EPOLLEXCLUSIVE weren't used, all the epoll_wait threads would have been woken up whenever a connection was available, meaning that as soon as the first connection arrived, both threads would have been racing to accept a single connection (resulting in a possible error for one of them).

Answer 2

This is only a partial answer, but Jason Baron (the author of the EPOLLEXCLUSIVE patch) just responded to an email I sent him to confirm that when using EPOLLEXCLUSIVE in level-triggered mode he does think it's possible that two connections will arrive but only one thread will be woken (thread B keeps sleeping). So when using EPOLLEXCLUSIVE you have to use the same kinds of defensive programming as you use for edge-trigged epoll, regardless of whether you set EPOLLET.