On 1/15/25 3:20 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13 2025 at 15:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:33:34PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> >>> @@ -548,7 +549,7 @@ void __futex_queue(struct futex_q *q, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb) >>> >>> plist_node_init(&q->list, prio); >>> plist_add(&q->list, &hb->chain); >>> - q->task = current; >>> + q->task = task; >>> } >>> >>> /** >> >> The alternative is, I suppose, to move the q->task assignment out to >> these two callsites instead. Thomas, any opinions? > > That's fine as long as hb->lock is held, but the explicit argument makes > all of this simpler to understand. > > Though I'm not really a fan of this part: > >> + __futex_queue(&ifd->q, hb, NULL); >> + spin_unlock(&hb->lock); > > Can we please add that @task argument to futex_queue() and keep the > internals in the futex code instead of pulling more stuff into io_uring? Sure, was trying to keep the change more minimal, but we can certainly add it to futex_queue() instead rather than needing to work around it on the io_uring side. I'll be happy to send out a patch for that. -- Jens Axboe
