Thank you Pavel for your review!
Since I have no indication if Jens did see your comment before applying
my patch, I will prepare another one with your comment addressed.
just ignore it if it is not needed anymore.
On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 12:05 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 7/29/24 23:38, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> > this info may be useful when attempting to debug a problem
> > involving a ring using the feature.
>
> Apart from a comment below,
>
> Reviewed-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Maybe, Jens would be willing to move the block after the spin_unlock
> while applying.
>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois <olivier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > io_uring/fdinfo.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/io_uring/fdinfo.c b/io_uring/fdinfo.c
> > index b1e0e0d85349..3ba42e136a40 100644
> > --- a/io_uring/fdinfo.c
> > +++ b/io_uring/fdinfo.c
> > @@ -221,7 +221,18 @@ __cold void io_uring_show_fdinfo(struct
> > seq_file *m, struct file *file)
> > cqe->user_data, cqe->res, cqe->flags);
> >
> > }
> > -
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL
> > + if (ctx->napi_enabled) {
> > + seq_puts(m, "NAPI:\tenabled\n");
> > + seq_printf(m, "napi_busy_poll_dt:\t%llu\n", ctx-
> > >napi_busy_poll_dt);
> > + if (ctx->napi_prefer_busy_poll)
> > + seq_puts(m,
> > "napi_prefer_busy_poll:\ttrue\n");
> > + else
> > + seq_puts(m,
> > "napi_prefer_busy_poll:\tfalse\n");
> > + } else {
> > + seq_puts(m, "NAPI:\tdisabled\n");
> > + }
> > +#endif
> > spin_unlock(&ctx->completion_lock);
>
> That doesn't need to be under completion_lock, it should move outside
> of the spin section.
>
>
> > }
> > #endif
>
