From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36BA8CA9EB9 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 03:41:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1FC20679 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 03:41:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="z4QNmvIx" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390659AbfJXDlh (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:41:37 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:33291 "EHLO mail-pg1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390576AbfJXDlh (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:41:37 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id u23so2679697pgo.0 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 20:41:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zwHGAGSuSHidG9tIwCEU1uoNu5Fa29oag25M6q1oS4o=; b=z4QNmvIxM8deAwXsqiRRKIwCsgsi6CeuScWhfRDFR+Tr2iapBdN5B+cEGNFP1CsLaa e6ivTuOhEIz5633m8Quwj47+4pIvI6WmGXeIuJJidMCVw/qQ8t/6aJ7aSft8nWe2hUyY JJ5APWRHqlHk9/nGlneMYTj0tCdY+k89tsI9RRH2tUEb9pZoFG74/zjZ/Yyj5GQH2gx8 MacTfAP+20MJUC7SBALQi5WvLVzvo8+fUIM/zifONixImdqKI59ip6UDtQaCOlkzEyds 4YqH0t7CIqzpo/G9VY8W2JIOZtmV8m6l8019sZZV1KeOHr8sHP60UDDjQgtldjnxNLhj VljQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zwHGAGSuSHidG9tIwCEU1uoNu5Fa29oag25M6q1oS4o=; b=p5raFGtbsCKo6CPyN3wpryqSWvQhqIIT/jpDSWNtT5gVOWwOYl32/XfrAdYoi785Rj 2rEcJcYRVttl8S624N9s3N1sD/2GhKNIzbHcbKA+9ArIWo9j0hWEBX1+4qJsDTaR86Cg M2p4rhqDvts9S+DosTodzJ/on2llj0TsyZfe8Mj/ALNclAmsNBnrP9741ABQipl1My51 qrZILRl/dn6LNVOMMmjKiMw498bNaCtIQ9bgLNSv1sXdEKir9+zsI+VQGZ0M9rES7cxG dQTDd6UIzd69dn+H/w24ewZldnuxruH9CttbpbDt5hOvopIuATR57kmBi0qXUz8ublDq UkPg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWE6zakSPEBgVSq6CESOhEKf1S9WIi5xgdOofP1hu+r0qAPv9SE aNpcbKN1tVq0V8mLTxY/4YWXPjytNvg66g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxm37nk22XJrjNXb77yzg7YTWelPCCHRdbgLNK7Gk2Dfn9QgDAUnowzRZUQnAtg1fWeO1P7sA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9b85:: with SMTP id g5mr1728643pjp.95.1571888496528; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 20:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.188] ([66.219.217.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a6sm6314170pfn.99.2019.10.23.20.41.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 20:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] io_uring : correct timeout req sequence when waiting timeout To: "zhangyi (F)" , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Cc: yangerkun@huawei.com References: <20191023071009.13891-1-yi.zhang@huawei.com> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 21:41:34 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191023071009.13891-1-yi.zhang@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 10/23/19 1:10 AM, zhangyi (F) wrote: > The sequence number of reqs on the timeout_list before the timeout req > should be adjusted in io_timeout_fn(), because the current timeout req > will consumes a slot in the cq_ring and cq_tail pointer will be > increased, otherwise other timeout reqs may return in advance without > waiting for enough wait_nr. Thanks, applied both patches. Will run them through some extra testing tomorrow, but looks good so far. -- Jens Axboe