io_uring: maintain ordering for DEFER_TASKRUN tw list

io_uring: maintain ordering for DEFER_TASKRUN tw list

We use lockless lists for the local and deferred task_work, which means
that when we queue up events for processing, we ultimately process them
in reverse order to how they were received. This usually doesn't matter,
but for some cases, it does seem to make a big difference. Do the right
thing and reverse the list before processing it, so that we know it's
processed in the same order in which it was received.

This makes a rather big difference for some medium load network tests,
where consistency of performance was a bit all over the place. Here's
a case that has 4 connections each doing two sends and receives:

io_uring port=10002: rps:161.13k Bps:  1.45M idle=256ms
io_uring port=10002: rps:107.27k Bps:  0.97M idle=413ms
io_uring port=10002: rps:136.98k Bps:  1.23M idle=321ms
io_uring port=10002: rps:155.58k Bps:  1.40M idle=268ms

and after the change:

io_uring port=10002: rps:205.48k Bps:  1.85M idle=140ms user=40ms
io_uring port=10002: rps:203.57k Bps:  1.83M idle=139ms user=20ms
io_uring port=10002: rps:218.79k Bps:  1.97M idle=106ms user=30ms
io_uring port=10002: rps:217.88k Bps:  1.96M idle=110ms user=20ms
io_uring port=10002: rps:222.31k Bps:  2.00M idle=101ms user=0ms
io_uring port=10002: rps:218.74k Bps:  1.97M idle=102ms user=20ms
io_uring port=10002: rps:208.43k Bps:  1.88M idle=125ms user=40ms

using more of the time to actually process work rather than sitting
idle.

No effects have been observed at the peak end of the spectrum, where
performance is still the same even with deep batch depths (and hence
more items to sort).

Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>