From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C789C4338F for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:33:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC186069E for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:33:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236792AbhG1OdV (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:33:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39984 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235389AbhG1OdV (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:33:21 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97F12C061757 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id d1so2957737pll.1 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I93ZekgMt+FP/zMznbmK/3Xm03pBLCP/or32y9OnTwk=; b=GGaOGy7FfumLwM4TAILDi6WxWNaFmAyvqipqbl3Yj1vbbB07Zyfu33eSzCFA4RG8+g u18POYYJ0/i0WRKPKkjwhLckqQLLeZbJisW9Exm4QHDVCcIWtFlmqyNkJ4Eqz4+zEdNU PVfXVpZAC4k8yYKf7K0r8LLpLr/QM8ZOWH9c8Tgc4pZldX611WxG4cl6oCLlJ5jzzwoo sI22FN8h4802zo2viAQ09EeNJ418sRnCS/DjXdAkEVfrybgGFbhsI5/6w7RuWn4WI2HO j8I0Z4DLgBUWV6Ulj+DQ1iTkFevqn8RsFANYQpyOrfTCseXxjh56kgeCTPheOl3Bu7Uj 1kBg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I93ZekgMt+FP/zMznbmK/3Xm03pBLCP/or32y9OnTwk=; b=DHGHwqSc5MSpdyqeGP56dF7UCPmIdxLVk0B8DiG5lrtTTKQb1TRqnQlfxf/hgbq/+c 9+E210s/QwzmO30wAN8s+w9ItaS6ArmJXj7J78pgbV6guniblG4Jk0fEpSBv8A7agmd1 086wbby8ltCHQQQtYtbXCkiGYbjTstSfS0dJadFkodGlhymCgLD1Q5tAr12M4Kznropt +invGKjMbYKKK+a8pU69DU2miVxvCWzAI8ZLqURq5ZVGpDUIy/hpzG5cl6FU4pplL7JM 3UR4Mq/N9hJsHXpyxMvkx1XuLniuvByolWaQfDDv8CxRrjTirAToCymZ8+BheHMMqnXj 6ABw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531blyCXb1+vCZSrC8MTWL7K0aRvShsrc2VCNhnDyyE07KiqTUKr 2edQZtGLHGTEFwOSbrMcd3/n1w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBw/wBCVO4Dsy6MN0pXP2d5QH1eVpLyOjzoiOZSbNoCft+95kz7fSV+VOJfTM4w9WvwKKz4A== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8148:0:b029:31b:10b4:f391 with SMTP id d8-20020aa781480000b029031b10b4f391mr74374pfn.69.1627482798955; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.116] ([198.8.77.61]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i6sm184919pfa.44.2021.07.28.07.33.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] io_uring: fix poll requests leaking second poll entries To: Hao Xu Cc: io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Begunkov , Joseph Qi References: <20210728030322.12307-1-haoxu@linux.alibaba.com> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <9183c6f1-9430-d55f-803b-71d5f71d2e41@kernel.dk> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 08:33:16 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210728030322.12307-1-haoxu@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 7/27/21 9:03 PM, Hao Xu wrote: > For pure poll requests, it doesn't remove the second poll wait entry > when it's done, neither after vfs_poll() or in the poll completion > handler. We should remove the second poll wait entry. > And we use io_poll_remove_double() rather than io_poll_remove_waitqs() > since the latter has some redundant logic. Applied, thanks. -- Jens Axboe