Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 1 May 2022 15:00:04 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/9] io-wq: implement fixed worker logic | From | Hao Xu <> |
| |
On 4/30/22 21:27, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 4/29/22 4:18 AM, Hao Xu wrote: >> @@ -1030,6 +1101,7 @@ static bool io_wq_work_match_item(struct io_wq_work *work, void *data) >> static void io_wqe_enqueue(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_wq_work *work) >> { >> struct io_wqe_acct *acct = io_work_get_acct(wqe, work); >> + struct io_wqe_acct *fixed_acct; >> struct io_cb_cancel_data match; >> unsigned work_flags = work->flags; >> bool do_create; >> @@ -1044,8 +1116,14 @@ static void io_wqe_enqueue(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_wq_work *work) >> return; >> } >> >> + fixed_acct = io_get_acct(wqe, !acct->index, true); >> + if (fixed_acct->fixed_worker_registered && !io_wq_is_hashed(work)) { >> + if (io_wqe_insert_private_work(wqe, work, fixed_acct)) >> + return; >> + } >> + > > As per previous email, I was going to comment back saying "why don't we > just always do hashed work on the non-fixed workers?" - but that's > already what you are doing. Isn't this fine, does anything else need to > get done here in terms of hashed work and fixed workers? If you need > per-iowq serialization, then you don't get a fixed worker.
Hmm, seems we cannot accelerate serialized works with fixed worker. So Let's make it as it is. >
|  |