On 11/21/22 12:14?PM, Stefan Roesch wrote:
> +/*
> + * io_napi_add() - Add napi id to the busy poll list
> + * @file: file pointer for socket
> + * @ctx: io-uring context
> + *
> + * Add the napi id of the socket to the napi busy poll list.
> + */
> +void io_napi_add(struct file *file, struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> +{
> + unsigned int napi_id;
> + struct socket *sock;
> + struct sock *sk;
> + struct io_napi_entry *ne;
> +
> + if (!io_napi_busy_loop_on(ctx))
> + return;
> +
> + sock = sock_from_file(file);
> + if (!sock)
> + return;
> +
> + sk = sock->sk;
> + if (!sk)
> + return;
> +
> + napi_id = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_napi_id);
> +
> + /* Non-NAPI IDs can be rejected */
> + if (napi_id < MIN_NAPI_ID)
> + return;
> +
> + spin_lock(&ctx->napi_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry(ne, &ctx->napi_list, list) {
> + if (ne->napi_id == napi_id) {
> + ne->timeout = jiffies + NAPI_TIMEOUT;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + ne = kmalloc(sizeof(*ne), GFP_NOWAIT);
> + if (!ne)
> + goto out;
> +
> + ne->napi_id = napi_id;
> + ne->timeout = jiffies + NAPI_TIMEOUT;
> + list_add_tail(&ne->list, &ctx->napi_list);
> +
> +out:
> + spin_unlock(&ctx->napi_lock);
> +}
I think this all looks good now, just one minor comment on the above. Is
the expectation here that we'll basically always add to the napi list?
If so, then I think allocating 'ne' outside the spinlock would be a lot
saner, and then just kfree() it for the unlikely case where we find a
duplicate.
--
Jens Axboe
