[PATCH 4/7] io_uring: kill poll linking optimisation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



With IORING_FEAT_FAST_POLL in place, io_put_req_find_next() for poll
requests doesn't make much sense, and in any case re-adding it
shouldn't be a problem considering batching in tctx_task_work(). We can
remove it.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx>
---
 fs/io_uring.c | 8 ++------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index c106c0fbaca2..9a2b3cf7c0c5 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -5485,7 +5485,6 @@ static bool __io_poll_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, __poll_t mask)
 static void io_poll_task_func(struct io_kiocb *req, bool *locked)
 {
 	struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
-	struct io_kiocb *nxt;
 
 	if (io_poll_rewait(req, &req->poll)) {
 		spin_unlock(&ctx->completion_lock);
@@ -5509,11 +5508,8 @@ static void io_poll_task_func(struct io_kiocb *req, bool *locked)
 		spin_unlock(&ctx->completion_lock);
 		io_cqring_ev_posted(ctx);
 
-		if (done) {
-			nxt = io_put_req_find_next(req);
-			if (nxt)
-				io_req_task_submit(nxt, locked);
-		}
+		if (done)
+			io_put_req(req);
 	}
 }
 
-- 
2.34.0




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux