> 2019年10月11日 11:34,Jens Axboe <ax...@kernel.dk> 写道:
> 
> On 10/10/19 9:27 PM, Jackie Liu wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 2019年10月11日 11:17,Jens Axboe <ax...@kernel.dk> 写道:
>>> 
>>> On 10/10/19 9:06 PM, Jackie Liu wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 2019年10月11日 10:35,Jens Axboe <ax...@kernel.dk> 写道:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/10/19 8:24 PM, yangerkun wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2019/10/9 9:19, Jackie Liu wrote:
>>>>>>> __io_get_deferred_req is used to get all defer lists, including 
>>>>>>> defer_list
>>>>>>> and timeout_list, but io_sequence_defer should be only cares about the 
>>>>>>> sequence.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jackie Liu <liuyu...@kylinos.cn>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>   fs/io_uring.c | 13 +++++--------
>>>>>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
>>>>>>> index 8a0381f1a43b..8ec2443eb019 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
>>>>>>> @@ -418,9 +418,7 @@ static struct io_ring_ctx *io_ring_ctx_alloc(struct 
>>>>>>> io_uring_params *p)
>>>>>>>   static inline bool io_sequence_defer(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>>>>>>>                                      struct io_kiocb *req)
>>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>> -       /* timeout requests always honor sequence */
>>>>>>> -       if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_TIMEOUT) &&
>>>>>>> -           (req->flags & (REQ_F_IO_DRAIN|REQ_F_IO_DRAINED)) != 
>>>>>>> REQ_F_IO_DRAIN)
>>>>>>> +       if ((req->flags & (REQ_F_IO_DRAIN|REQ_F_IO_DRAINED)) != 
>>>>>>> REQ_F_IO_DRAIN)
>>>>>>>                 return false;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>         return req->sequence != ctx->cached_cq_tail + 
>>>>>>> ctx->rings->sq_dropped;
>>>>>>> @@ -435,12 +433,11 @@ static struct io_kiocb 
>>>>>>> *__io_get_deferred_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>>>>>>>                 return NULL;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>         req = list_first_entry(list, struct io_kiocb, list);
>>>>>>> -       if (!io_sequence_defer(ctx, req)) {
>>>>>>> -               list_del_init(&req->list);
>>>>>>> -               return req;
>>>>>>> -       }
>>>>>>> +       if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_TIMEOUT) && io_sequence_defer(ctx, 
>>>>>>> req))
>>>>>>> +               return NULL;
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For timeout req, we should also compare the sequence to determine to
>>>>>> return NULL or the req. But now we will return req directly. Actually,
>>>>>> no need to compare req->flags with REQ_F_TIMEOUT.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, not sure how I missed this, the patch is broken as-is. I will kill
>>>>> it, cleanup can be done differently.
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry for miss it, I don't wanna change the logic, it's not my
>>>> original meaning.
>>> 
>>> No worries, mistakes happen.
>>> 
>>>> Personal opinion, timeout list should not be mixed with defer_list,
>>>> which makes the code more complicated and difficult to understand.
>>> 
>>> Not sure why you feel they are mixed? They are in separate lists, but
>>> they share using the sequence logic. In that respet they are really not
>>> that different, the sequence will trigger either one of them. Either as
>>> a timeout, or as a "can now be issued". Hence the code handling them is
>>> both shared and identical.
>> 
>> I not sure, I think I need reread the code of timeout command.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I do agree that the check could be cleaner, which is probably how the
>>> mistake in this patch happened in the first place.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes, I agree with you. io_sequence_defer should be only cares about
>> the sequence.  Thanks for point out this mistake.
> 
> How about something like this? More cleanly separates them to avoid
> mixing flags. The regular defer code will honor the flags, the timeout
> code will just bypass those.
> 
> 
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index c92cb09cc262..4a2bb81cb1f1 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -416,26 +416,29 @@ static struct io_ring_ctx *io_ring_ctx_alloc(struct 
> io_uring_params *p)
>       return ctx;
> }
> 
> +static inline bool __io_sequence_defer(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> +                                    struct io_kiocb *req)
> +{
> +     return req->sequence != ctx->cached_cq_tail + ctx->rings->sq_dropped;
> +}
> +
> static inline bool io_sequence_defer(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>                                    struct io_kiocb *req)
> {
> -     /* timeout requests always honor sequence */
> -     if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_TIMEOUT) &&
> -         (req->flags & (REQ_F_IO_DRAIN|REQ_F_IO_DRAINED)) != REQ_F_IO_DRAIN)
> +     if ((req->flags & (REQ_F_IO_DRAIN|REQ_F_IO_DRAINED)) != REQ_F_IO_DRAIN)
>               return false;
> 
> -     return req->sequence != ctx->cached_cq_tail + ctx->rings->sq_dropped;
> +     return __io_sequence_defer(ctx, req);
> }
> 
> -static struct io_kiocb *__io_get_deferred_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> -                                           struct list_head *list)
> +static struct io_kiocb *io_get_deferred_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> {
>       struct io_kiocb *req;
> 
> -     if (list_empty(list))
> +     if (list_empty(&ctx->defer_list))
>               return NULL;
> 
> -     req = list_first_entry(list, struct io_kiocb, list);
> +     req = list_first_entry(&ctx->defer_list, struct io_kiocb, list);
>       if (!io_sequence_defer(ctx, req)) {
>               list_del_init(&req->list);
>               return req;
> @@ -444,14 +447,20 @@ static struct io_kiocb *__io_get_deferred_req(struct 
> io_ring_ctx *ctx,
>       return NULL;
> }
> 
> -static struct io_kiocb *io_get_deferred_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> -{
> -     return __io_get_deferred_req(ctx, &ctx->defer_list);
> -}
> -
> static struct io_kiocb *io_get_timeout_req(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> {
> -     return __io_get_deferred_req(ctx, &ctx->timeout_list);
> +     struct io_kiocb *req;
> +
> +     if (list_empty(&ctx->timeout_list))
> +             return NULL;
> +
> +     req = list_first_entry(&ctx->timeout_list, struct io_kiocb, list);
> +     if (!__io_sequence_defer(ctx, req)) {
> +             list_del_init(&req->list);
> +             return req;
> +     }
> +
> +     return NULL;
> }
> 
> static void __io_commit_cqring(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> 

Much better, clearly and easy understand.

--
BR, Jackie Liu



Reply via email to