[PATCH 3/3] io_uring: synchronise ev_posted() with waitqueues

[Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>]

waitqueue_active() needs smp_mb() to be in sync with waitqueues
modification, but we miss it in io_cqring_ev_posted*() apart from
cq_wait() case.

Take an smb_mb() out of wq_has_sleeper() making it waitqueue_active(),
and place it a few lines before, so it can synchronise other
waitqueue_active() as well.

The patch doesn't add any additional overhead, so even if there are
no problems currently, it's just safer to have it this way.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
---
 fs/io_uring.c | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 401316fe2ae2..cb57e0360fcb 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -1700,13 +1700,16 @@ static inline unsigned __io_cqring_events(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
 
 static void io_cqring_ev_posted(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
 {
+	/* see waitqueue_active() comment */
+	smp_mb();
+
 	if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->wait))
 		wake_up(&ctx->wait);
 	if (ctx->sq_data && waitqueue_active(&ctx->sq_data->wait))
 		wake_up(&ctx->sq_data->wait);
 	if (io_should_trigger_evfd(ctx))
 		eventfd_signal(ctx->cq_ev_fd, 1);
-	if (wq_has_sleeper(&ctx->cq_wait)) {
+	if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->cq_wait)) {
 		wake_up_interruptible(&ctx->cq_wait);
 		kill_fasync(&ctx->cq_fasync, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
 	}
@@ -1714,13 +1717,16 @@ static void io_cqring_ev_posted(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
 
 static void io_cqring_ev_posted_iopoll(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
 {
+	/* see waitqueue_active() comment */
+	smp_mb();
+
 	if (ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_SQPOLL) {
 		if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->wait))
 			wake_up(&ctx->wait);
 	}
 	if (io_should_trigger_evfd(ctx))
 		eventfd_signal(ctx->cq_ev_fd, 1);
-	if (wq_has_sleeper(&ctx->cq_wait)) {
+	if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->cq_wait)) {
 		wake_up_interruptible(&ctx->cq_wait);
 		kill_fasync(&ctx->cq_fasync, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
 	}
-- 
2.24.0