On 11/21/24 8:15 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > I'd rather entertain NOT using llists for this in the first place, as it > gets rid of the reversing which is the main cost here. That won't change > the need for a retry list necessarily, as I think we'd be better off > with a lockless retry list still. But at least it'd get rid of the > reversing. Let me see if I can dig out that patch... Totally orthogonal > to this topic, obviously. It's here: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20240326184615.458820-3-axboe@xxxxxxxxx/ I did improve it further but never posted it again, fwiw. -- Jens Axboe
