On 6/30/21 3:19 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 6/30/21 10:17 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 6/30/21 2:54 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> Whenever possible we don't want to fallback a request. task_work_add() >>> will be fine if the task is exiting, so don't check for PF_EXITING, >>> there is anyway only a relatively small gap between setting the flag >>> and doing the final task_work_run(). >>> >>> Also add likely for the hot path. >> >> I'm not a huge fan of likely/unlikely, and in particular constructs like: >> >>> - if (test_bit(0, &tctx->task_state) || >>> + if (likely(test_bit(0, &tctx->task_state)) || >>> test_and_set_bit(0, &tctx->task_state)) >>> return 0; >> >> where the state is combined. In any case, it should be a separate >> change. If there's an "Also" paragraph in a patch, then that's also >> usually a good clue that that particular change should've been >> separate :-) > > Not sure what's wrong with likely above, but how about drop > this one then? Yep I did - we can do the exiting change separately, the commit message just needs to be clarified a bit on why it's ok to do now. And that last sentence dropped, of course. -- Jens Axboe
