Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-171895-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <7ce84a03-d682-45aa-a67c-b789e3e90499@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 18:34:59 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring/io-wq: Use set_bit() and test_bit() at
 worker->flags
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
 Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Cc: "open list:IO_URING" <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
 open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240507150506.1748059-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <d7d87db7-af34-4d48-8e26-ac13b5abced9@kernel.dk>
Content-Language: en-MW
In-Reply-To: <d7d87db7-af34-4d48-8e26-ac13b5abced9@kernel.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Le 07/05/2024 à 17:09, Jens Axboe a écrit :
> On 5/7/24 9:05 AM, Breno Leitao wrote:
>> @@ -631,7 +631,7 @@ static int io_wq_worker(void *data)
>>   	bool exit_mask = false, last_timeout = false;
>>   	char buf[TASK_COMM_LEN];
>>   
>> -	worker->flags |= (IO_WORKER_F_UP | IO_WORKER_F_RUNNING);
>> +	set_mask_bits(&worker->flags, 0, IO_WORKER_F_UP | IO_WORKER_F_RUNNING);
> 
> This takes a mask, no? I think this should be:
> 
> set_mask_bits(&worker->flags, 0, BIT(IO_WORKER_F_UP) | BIT(IO_WORKER_F_RUNNING);
> 
> Hmm?
> 

Because of that:

  enum {
-	IO_WORKER_F_UP		= 1,	/* up and active */
-	IO_WORKER_F_RUNNING	= 2,	/* account as running */
-	IO_WORKER_F_FREE	= 4,	/* worker on free list */
-	IO_WORKER_F_BOUND	= 8,	/* is doing bounded work */
+	IO_WORKER_F_UP		= 0,	/* up and active */
+	IO_WORKER_F_RUNNING	= 1,	/* account as running */
+	IO_WORKER_F_FREE	= 2,	/* worker on free list */
+	IO_WORKER_F_BOUND	= 3,	/* is doing bounded work */
  };

yes, now, BIT() is needed.


CJ