[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y/iJiCW+HmWZofgs@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:55:20 -0800
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...e.de>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, asml.silence@...il.com, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gustavold@...a.com, leit@...a.com,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] io_uring: Move from hlist to io_wq_work_node
Hello Krisman, thanks for the review
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 04:02:25PM -0300, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org> writes:
> > static inline struct io_cache_entry *io_alloc_cache_get(struct io_alloc_cache *cache)
> > {
> > - if (!hlist_empty(&cache->list)) {
> > - struct hlist_node *node = cache->list.first;
> > + if (cache->list.next) {
> > + struct io_cache_entry *entry;
> >
> > - hlist_del(node);
> > - return container_of(node, struct io_cache_entry, node);
> > + entry = container_of(cache->list.next, struct io_cache_entry, node);
> > + cache->list.next = cache->list.next->next;
> > + return entry;
> > }
>
> From a quick look, I think you could use wq_stack_extract() here
True, we can use wq_stack_extract() in this patch, but, we would need to
revert to back to this code in the next patch. Remember that
wq_stack_extract() touches the stack->next->next, which will be
poisoned, causing a KASAN warning.
Here is relevant part of the code:
struct io_wq_work_node *wq_stack_extract(struct io_wq_work_node *stack)
{
struct io_wq_work_node *node = stack->next;
stack->next = node->next;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists