On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 01:19:31PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/16/23 1:11?PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2023-07-16 12:13:45 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> Here's one for 6.1-stable.
> >
> > Thanks for working on that!
> >
> >
> >> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
> >> index cc35aba1e495..de117d3424b2 100644
> >> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
> >> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
> >> @@ -2346,7 +2346,7 @@ static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> >> struct io_wait_queue *iowq,
> >> ktime_t *timeout)
> >> {
> >> - int ret;
> >> + int token, ret;
> >> unsigned long check_cq;
> >>
> >> /* make sure we run task_work before checking for signals */
> >> @@ -2362,9 +2362,18 @@ static inline int io_cqring_wait_schedule(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
> >> if (check_cq & BIT(IO_CHECK_CQ_DROPPED_BIT))
> >> return -EBADR;
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Use io_schedule_prepare/finish, so cpufreq can take into account
> >> + * that the task is waiting for IO - turns out to be important for low
> >> + * QD IO.
> >> + */
> >> + token = io_schedule_prepare();
> >> + ret = 0;
> >> if (!schedule_hrtimeout(timeout, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS))
> >> - return -ETIME;
> >> - return 1;
> >> + ret = -ETIME;
> >> + io_schedule_finish(token);
> >> + return ret;
> >> }
> >
> > To me it looks like this might have changed more than intended? Previously
> > io_cqring_wait_schedule() returned 0 in case schedule_hrtimeout() returned
> > non-zero, now io_cqring_wait_schedule() returns 1 in that case? Am I missing
> > something?
>
> Ah shoot yes indeed. Greg, can you drop the 5.10/5.15/6.1 ones for now?
> I'll get it sorted tomorrow. Sorry about that, and thanks for catching
> that Andres!
Sure, will go drop it now, thanks.
greg k-h
