On 8/14/21 8:13 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 8/14/21 10:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> If a requests is forwarded into io-wq, there is a good chance it hasn't
>> been refcounted yet and we can save one req_ref_get() by setting the
>> refcount number to the right value directly.
>
> Not sure this really matters, but can't hurt either. But...
The refcount patches made this one atomic worse, and I just prefer
to not regress, even if slightly
>> @@ -1115,14 +1115,19 @@ static inline void req_ref_get(struct io_kiocb *req)
>> atomic_inc(&req->refs);
>> }
>>
>> -static inline void io_req_refcount(struct io_kiocb *req)
>> +static inline void __io_req_refcount(struct io_kiocb *req, int nr)
>> {
>> if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_REFCOUNT)) {
>> req->flags |= REQ_F_REFCOUNT;
>> - atomic_set(&req->refs, 1);
>> + atomic_set(&req->refs, nr);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void io_req_refcount(struct io_kiocb *req)
>> +{
>> + __io_req_refcount(req, 1);
>> +}
>> +
>
> I really think these should be io_req_set_refcount() or something like
> that, making it clear that we're actively setting/manipulating the ref
> count.
Agree. A separate patch, maybe?
--
Pavel Begunkov
