On 8/22/24 7:22 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 8/21/24 15:16, Jens Axboe wrote: >> In preparation for having two distinct timeouts and avoid waking the >> task if we don't need to. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> io_uring/io_uring.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >> io_uring/io_uring.h | 2 ++ >> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c >> index 9e2b8d4c05db..4ba5292137c3 100644 >> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c >> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c >> @@ -2322,7 +2322,7 @@ static int io_wake_function(struct wait_queue_entry *curr, unsigned int mode, >> * Cannot safely flush overflowed CQEs from here, ensure we wake up >> * the task, and the next invocation will do it. >> */ >> - if (io_should_wake(iowq) || io_has_work(iowq->ctx)) >> + if (io_should_wake(iowq) || io_has_work(iowq->ctx) || iowq->hit_timeout) > > Shouldn't be needed. If the timer fires, it should wake the task, > and the task will check ->hit_timeout there and later remove the > itself from the waitqueue. Good point indeed, I'll kill it. -- Jens Axboe
