From: Praveen Kumar <[email protected]>
To: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] io_uring: refactor event check out of __io_async_wake()
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:05:39 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 25-10-2021 11:08, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
> Which is a preparation for following patch, and here try to inline
> __io_async_wake(), which is simple and can save a function call.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/io_uring.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index 736d456e7913..18af9bb9a4bc 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -5228,13 +5228,9 @@ struct io_poll_table {
> int error;
> };
>
> -static int __io_async_wake(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_poll_iocb *poll,
> +static inline int __io_async_wake(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_poll_iocb *poll,
> __poll_t mask, io_req_tw_func_t func)
> {
> - /* for instances that support it check for an event match first: */
> - if (mask && !(mask & poll->events))
> - return 0;
> -
Is it possible to keep this check as it is, and make the __io_async_wake function inline ONLY ?
As I can see, the callers doing the same checks at different places ?
Also, there could be a possibility that, this check may get missed in new caller APIs introduced in future.
> trace_io_uring_task_add(req->ctx, req->opcode, req->user_data, mask);
>
> list_del_init(&poll->wait.entry);
> @@ -5508,11 +5504,16 @@ static int io_async_wake(struct wait_queue_entry *wait, unsigned mode, int sync,
> {
> struct io_kiocb *req = wait->private;
> struct io_poll_iocb *poll = &req->apoll->poll;
> + __poll_t mask = key_to_poll(key);
>
> trace_io_uring_poll_wake(req->ctx, req->opcode, req->user_data,
> key_to_poll(key));
>
> - return __io_async_wake(req, poll, key_to_poll(key), io_async_task_func);
> + /* for instances that support it check for an event match first: */
> + if (mask && !(mask & poll->events))
> + return 0;
> +
> + return __io_async_wake(req, poll, mask, io_async_task_func);
> }
>
> static void io_poll_req_insert(struct io_kiocb *req)
> @@ -5772,8 +5773,13 @@ static int io_poll_wake(struct wait_queue_entry *wait, unsigned mode, int sync,
> {
> struct io_kiocb *req = wait->private;
> struct io_poll_iocb *poll = &req->poll;
> + __poll_t mask = key_to_poll(key);
> +
> + /* for instances that support it check for an event match first: */
> + if (mask && !(mask & poll->events))
> + return 0;
>
> - return __io_async_wake(req, poll, key_to_poll(key), io_poll_task_func);
> + return __io_async_wake(req, poll, mask, io_poll_task_func);
> }
>
> static void io_poll_queue_proc(struct file *file, struct wait_queue_head *head,
>
Regards,
~Praveen.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-25 9:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-25 5:38 [PATCH v3 0/3] improvements for multi-shot poll requests Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-25 5:38 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] io_uring: refactor event check out of __io_async_wake() Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-25 9:35 ` Praveen Kumar [this message]
2021-10-25 5:38 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] io_uring: reduce frequent add_wait_queue() overhead for multi-shot poll request Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-28 19:21 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 2:57 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-29 10:02 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 13:37 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-29 13:47 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 14:12 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 14:34 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-25 5:38 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] io_uring: don't get completion_lock in io_poll_rewait() Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-28 19:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 5:59 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2021-10-28 18:19 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] improvements for multi-shot poll requests Jens Axboe
2021-10-29 18:29 ` Jens Axboe
2021-10-28 18:19 ` Jens Axboe
2021-10-28 19:01 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-28 19:04 ` Pavel Begunkov
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 \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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