On 11/21/24 15:22, Jens Axboe wrote:
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.
io_req_local_work_add() needs a smp_mb() after unlock, see comments,
release/unlock doesn't do it.
--
Pavel Begunkov
