Re: [PATCH] io_uring: kill io_cqring_ev_posted() and __io_cq_unlock_post()

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

 



On 11/24/22 19:17, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 11/24/22 18:46, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 11/24/22 9:16?AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 11/21/22 14:52, Jens Axboe wrote:
__io_cq_unlock_post() is identical to io_cq_unlock_post(), and
io_cqring_ev_posted() has a single caller so migth as well just inline
it there.

It was there for one purpose, to inline it in the hottest path,
i.e. __io_submit_flush_completions(). I'll be reverting it back

The compiler is most certainly already doing that, in fact even

.L1493:
# io_uring/io_uring.c:631:     io_cq_unlock_post(ctx);
     movq    %r15, %rdi    # ctx,
     call    io_cq_unlock_post    #

wrong one,

__io_submit_flush_completions:
	pushq	%rbp	#
...
.L1793:
# io_uring/io_uring.c:1394: 	io_cq_unlock_post(ctx);
	movq	%r12, %rdi	# ctx,
	call	io_cq_unlock_post	#


Even more, after IORING_SETUP_CQE32 was added I didn't see
once __io_fill_cqe_req actually inlined even though it's marked
so.

__io_submit_flush_completions() is inlined in
io_submit_flush_completions() for me here.

And io_submit_flush_completions is inlined as well, right?
That would be quite odd, __io_submit_flush_completions() is not
small by any means and there are 3 call sites.


--
Pavel Begunkov



[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