Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-171165-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 04:02:11 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>, leit@meta.com,
	"open list:IO_URING" <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring/io-wq: Use set_bit() and test_bit() at
 worker->flags
Message-ID: <ZjoKM7ro0wDqsdWP@gmail.com>
References: <20240503173711.2211911-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <d05aa530-f0f5-4ec2-91ae-b193ae644395@kernel.dk>
 <ZjoGJH1CEk+f+U7n@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZjoGJH1CEk+f+U7n@gmail.com>

On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 03:44:54AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Since we are now using WRITE_ONCE() in io_wq_worker, I am wondering if
> this is what we want to do?
> 
> 	WRITE_ONCE(worker->flags, (IO_WORKER_F_UP| IO_WORKER_F_RUNNING) << 1);

In fact, we can't clear flags here, so, more correct approach will be:

	WRITE_ONCE(worker->flags, READ_ONCE(worker->flags) | (IO_WORKER_F_UP | IO_WORKER_F_RUNNING) << 1);

Does it sound reasonable?

Thanks