[for-next,1/4] io_uring: don't miss setting REQ_F_DOUBLE_POLL

Commit Message

Pavel Begunkov July 7, 2022, 2:13 p.m. UTC

When adding a second poll entry we should set REQ_F_DOUBLE_POLL
unconditionally. We might race with the first entry removal but that
doesn't change the rule.

Fixes: a18427bb2d9b ("io_uring: optimise submission side poll_refs")
Reported-and-tested-by: [e-mail]
Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <[e-mail]>
---
 io_uring/poll.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Patch

diff --git a/io_uring/poll.c b/io_uring/poll.c
index 57747d92bba4..3710a0a46a87 100644
--- a/io_uring/poll.c
+++ b/io_uring/poll.c
@@ -401,16 +401,18 @@  static void io_poll_double_prepare(struct io_kiocb *req)
 	/* head is RCU protected, see io_poll_remove_entries() comments */
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	head = smp_load_acquire(&poll->head);
-	if (head) {
-		/*
-		 * poll arm may not hold ownership and so race with
-		 * io_poll_wake() by modifying req->flags. There is only one
-		 * poll entry queued, serialise with it by taking its head lock.
-		 */
+	/*
+	 * poll arm may not hold ownership and so race with
+	 * io_poll_wake() by modifying req->flags. There is only one
+	 * poll entry queued, serialise with it by taking its head lock.
+	 */
+	if (head)
 		spin_lock_irq(&head->lock);
-		req->flags |= REQ_F_DOUBLE_POLL;
+
+	req->flags |= REQ_F_DOUBLE_POLL;
+
+	if (head)
 		spin_unlock_irq(&head->lock);
-	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 }