public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASE v2 0/5] return nxt propagation within io-wq ctx
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:00:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 2/29/20 11:44 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 29/02/2020 02:37, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> After io_put_req_find_next() was patched, handlers no more return
>> next work, but enqueue them through io_queue_async_work() (mostly
>> by io_put_work() -> io_put_req()). The patchset fixes that.
>>
>> Patches 1-2 clean up and removes all futile attempts to get nxt from
>> the opcode handlers. The 3rd one moves all this propagation idea into
>> work->put_work(). And the rest ones are small clean up on top.
> 
> And now I'm hesitant about the approach. It works fine, but I want to
> remove a lot of excessive locking from io-wq, and it'll be in the way.
> Ignore this, I'll try something else
> 
> The question is whether there was a problem with io_req_find_next() in
> the first place... It was stealing @nxt, when it already completed a
> request and were synchronous to the submission ref holder, thus it
> should have been fine.

There was only a problem with it if we have multiple calls of
io_put_req_find_next(), so it was a bit fragile. That was the only
issue, but that's big enough imho.

I'll ignore this series for now, you can always rebase on top of the
other stuff if you want to.

-- 
Jens Axboe


      reply	other threads:[~2020-02-29 19:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-28 23:37 [PATCH REBASE v2 0/5] return nxt propagation within io-wq ctx Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-28 23:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] io_uring: remove @nxt from the handlers Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-28 23:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] io_uring/io-wq: pass *work instead of **workptr Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-28 23:37 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] io_uring/io-wq: allow put_work return next work Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-28 23:37 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] io_uring: remove extra nxt check after punt Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-28 23:37 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] io_uring: remove io_prep_next_work() Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-29 18:44 ` [PATCH REBASE v2 0/5] return nxt propagation within io-wq ctx Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-29 19:00   ` Jens Axboe [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 \
    [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