David Disseldorp wrote:
iSCSI/iSER targets may send PDUs without a prior request from the initiator, RFC 5046 refers to these PDUs as 
"unexpected". NOP-In PDUs with itt=RESERVED and Asynchronous Message PDUs occupy this category. 
Currently when an iSER target sends an "unexpected" PDU, the initiators recv buffer consumed by the 
PDU is not replaced. If over initial_post_recv_bufs_num "unexpected" PDUs are received then the 
receive queue will run out of receive work requests.
Assuming these target initiated NOP-Ins are echoed back by the initiator, the current code of iser_send_control would post a receive buffer when sending the NOP-Out which will account for the buffer consumed by the NOP-In. So we are remained with the Asynchronous PDUs for which your patch indeed seems to fix a hole in the implementation.

This patch ensures recv buffers consumed by "unexpected" PDUs are replaced 
prior to sending the next control-type PDU.
The practice used by the patch is account unexpected receives and refill the receive buffer queue when ever possible with as many as unexpected receives that took place since the last refill attempt. To ease with future maintainance and debugging / simplicity of the code, I would prefer a patch with zero foot-print at the iser_send_xxx functions, something like account --async-- receives and when calling iser_post_receive_control fill-in the missing buffers.

@@ -586,6 +635,21 @@ void iser_rcv_completion(struct iser_desc *rx_desc,
         * parallel to the execution of iser_conn_term. So the code that waits *
         * for the posted rx bufs refcount to become zero handles everything   
*/
        atomic_dec(&conn->ib_conn->post_recv_buf_count);
+
+       /*
+        * if an unexpected PDU was received then the recv wr consumed must
+        * be replaced, this is done in the next send of a control-type PDU
+        */
+       if ((opcode == ISCSI_OP_NOOP_IN)
+        && (hdr->itt == RESERVED_ITT)) {
+               /* nop-in with itt = 0xffffffff */
+               atomic_inc(&conn->ib_conn->unexpected_pdu_count);
+       }
As I wrote above, this seems to be unneeded

Or.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general

To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

Reply via email to