On Tue, 2024-08-13 at 12:35 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 8/13/24 11:22 AM, Olivier Langlois wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-08-12 at 14:40 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am surprised to notice that in __io_napi_do_busy_loop(), > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu() is called to traverse the list but > > > > the > > > > regular methods list_del() and list_add_tail() are called to > > > > update > > > > the > > > > list instead of their RCU variant. > > > > > > Should all just use rcu variants. > > > > > > Here's a mashup of the changes. Would be great if you can test - > > > I'll > > > do > > > some too, but always good with more than one person testing as it > > > tends > > > to hit more cases. > > > > > Jens, > > > > I have integrated our RCU corrections into > > https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/5fc9dd07e48a7178f547ed1b2aaa0814607fa246.1723567469.git.olivier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > > > and my testing so far is not showing any problems... > > but I have a very static setup... > > I had no issues too without the corrections... > > Thanks for testing, but regardless of whether that series would go in > or > not, I think those rcu changes should be done separately and upfront > rather than be integrated with other changes. > sorry about that... I am going to share a little bit how I currently feel. I feel disappointed because when I reread your initial reply, I have not been able to spot a single positive thing said about my proposal despite that I have prealably tested the water concerning my idea and the big lines about how I was planning to design it. All, I have been told from Pavel that the idea was so great that he was even currently playing with a prototype around the same concept: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/1be64672f22be44fbe1540053427d978c0224dfc.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#mc7271764641f9c810ea5438ed3dc0662fbc08cb6 you also have to understand that all the small napi issues that I have fixed this week are no stranger from me working on this new idea. The RCU issues that I have reported back have been spotted when I was doing my final code review before testing my patch before submitting it. keep in mind that I am by far a git magician. I am a very casual user... Anything that is outside the usual beaten trails such as reordoring commits or breaking them down feels perilious to me... I had 230+ lines changes committed when you confirmed that few lines should be changed to address this new RCU issue. I did figure that it would not that big a deal to include them with the rest of my change. that being said, if my patch submission is acceptable conditional to needed rework, I am willing to learn how to better use git to meet your requirements. Greetings,
