[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6228b13d-5ef6-e83e-b5dc-7a157013d43f@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:23:03 +0300
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Optimise io_uring completion waiting
On 24/09/2019 14:15, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/24/19 5:11 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 24/09/2019 13:34, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 9/24/19 4:13 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/19 3:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:36:28AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +struct io_wait_queue {
>>>>>> + struct wait_queue_entry wq;
>>>>>> + struct io_ring_ctx *ctx;
>>>>>> + struct task_struct *task;
>>>>>
>>>>> wq.private is where the normal waitqueue stores the task pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I'm going to rename that)
>>>>
>>>> If you do that, then we can just base the io_uring parts on that.
>>>
>>> Just took a quick look at it, and ran into block/kyber-iosched.c that
>>> actually uses the private pointer for something that isn't a task
>>> struct...
>>>
>>
>> Let reuse autoremove_wake_function anyway. Changed a bit your patch:
>
> Yep that should do it, and saves 8 bytes of stack as well.
>
> BTW, did you test my patch, this one or the previous? Just curious if it
> worked for you.
>
Not yet, going to do that tonight
--
Yours sincerely,
Pavel Begunkov
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists