From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Hao Xu <[email protected]>, Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Joseph Qi <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH io_uring-5.14 v2] io_uring: remove double poll wait entry for pure poll
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 15:31:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 7/23/21 10:22 AM, Hao Xu wrote:
> For pure poll requests, we should remove the double poll wait entry.
> And io_poll_remove_double() is good enough for it compared with
> io_poll_remove_waitqs().
5.14 in the subject hints me that it's a fix. Is it?
Can you add what it fixes or expand on why it's better?
> Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> v1-->v2
> delete redundant io_poll_remove_double()
>
> fs/io_uring.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index f2fe4eca150b..c5fe8b9e26b4 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -4903,7 +4903,6 @@ static bool io_poll_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, __poll_t mask)
> if (req->poll.events & EPOLLONESHOT)
> flags = 0;
> if (!io_cqring_fill_event(ctx, req->user_data, error, flags)) {
> - io_poll_remove_waitqs(req);
> req->poll.done = true;
> flags = 0;
> }
> @@ -4926,6 +4925,7 @@ static void io_poll_task_func(struct io_kiocb *req)
>
> done = io_poll_complete(req, req->result);
> if (done) {
> + io_poll_remove_double(req);
> hash_del(&req->hash_node);
> } else {
> req->result = 0;
> @@ -5113,7 +5113,7 @@ static __poll_t __io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req,
> ipt->error = -EINVAL;
>
> spin_lock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
> - if (ipt->error)
> + if (ipt->error || (mask && (poll->events & EPOLLONESHOT)))
> io_poll_remove_double(req);
> if (likely(poll->head)) {
> spin_lock(&poll->head->lock);
> @@ -5185,7 +5185,6 @@ static int io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req)
> ret = __io_arm_poll_handler(req, &apoll->poll, &ipt, mask,
> io_async_wake);
> if (ret || ipt.error) {
> - io_poll_remove_double(req);
> spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
> if (ret)
> return IO_APOLL_READY;
>
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-23 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-23 9:22 [PATCH io_uring-5.14 v2] io_uring: remove double poll wait entry for pure poll Hao Xu
2021-07-23 14:31 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2021-07-23 16:22 ` Jens Axboe
2021-07-24 4:48 ` Hao Xu
2021-07-26 12:40 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-07-26 14:39 ` Hao Xu
2021-07-27 22:46 ` Jens Axboe
2021-07-28 6:06 ` Hao Xu
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