Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <dc8bfa6b-5e3b-e2a9-b7b5-da5bbc70d3bc@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:43:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] io_uring: minor io_cqring_wait() optimization
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Olivier Langlois <olivier@trillion01.com>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Cc:     Hao Xu <haoxu@linux.alibaba.com>,
        io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <cover.1646777484.git.olivier@trillion01.com>
 <84513f7cc1b1fb31d8f4cb910aee033391d036b4.1646777484.git.olivier@trillion01.com>
 <7f39095c-1070-7a70-91a0-b0ccb33c368b@kernel.dk>
 <36cd0f716bda419f477c3256769f382a31461481.camel@trillion01.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <36cd0f716bda419f477c3256769f382a31461481.camel@trillion01.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/8/22 10:36 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 17:54 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/8/22 3:17 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote:
>>> Move up the block manipulating the sig variable to execute code
>>> that may encounter an error and exit first before continuing
>>> executing the rest of the function and avoid useless computations
>>
>> I don't think this is worthwhile doing. If you're hitting an error
>> in any of them, it's by definition not the fast path.
>>
> Well, by itself it is not a big improvement but it is still an
> improvement.
> 
> but most importantly, it has to be considered in the context of the
> current patchset because in patch #2, the following step is to
> 
> 1. acquire the napi spin lock
> 2. splice the context napi list into a local one.
> 3. release the lock
> 
> If this patch is not in place before patch #2, you would need undo all
> that before returning from the sig block which would make the function
> bigger when all that is completely avoidable by accepting this patch...
> 
> Both patches were together in v1 but I decided to break them apart
> thinking that this was the right thing to do...

Yeah ok, it does make sense in the context of patch 2. Thanks!

-- 
Jens Axboe