On 12/03/13 14:17, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On 11/27/2013 9:42 AM, Line Holen wrote:
On 11/27/13 13:16, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
On 11/15/2013 7:15 AM, Line Holen wrote:
The retry counter is now only updated if a packet is actually sent.
(But as before the initial request is also counted.)
Prior to this change the actual maximum number of packets sent were
polling retry number minus one.
Signed-off-by: Line Holen<[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/opensm/osm_sm_state_mgr.c b/opensm/osm_sm_state_mgr.c
index 596ad8f..6eff9ee 100644
--- a/opensm/osm_sm_state_mgr.c
+++ b/opensm/osm_sm_state_mgr.c
@@ -197,16 +197,14 @@ void osm_sm_state_mgr_polling_callback(IN void
*context)
}
/*
- * Incr the retry number.
- * If it reached the max_retry_number in the subnet opt - call
+ * If retry number reached the max_retry_number in the subnet
opt - call
* osm_sm_state_mgr_process with signal
OSM_SM_SIGNAL_POLLING_TIMEOUT
*/
- sm->retry_number++;
OSM_LOG(sm->p_log, OSM_LOG_VERBOSE, "SM State %d (%s), Retry
number:%d\n",
sm->p_subn->sm_state,
osm_get_sm_mgr_state_str(sm->p_subn->sm_state),
sm->retry_number);
- if (sm->retry_number>= sm->p_subn->opt.polling_retry_number) {
+ if (sm->retry_number> sm->p_subn->opt.polling_retry_number) {
OSM_LOG(sm->p_log, OSM_LOG_DEBUG,
"Reached polling_retry_number value in retry_number. "
"Go to DISCOVERY state\n");
@@ -214,6 +212,9 @@ void osm_sm_state_mgr_polling_callback(IN void
*context)
goto Exit;
}
+ /* Increment the retry number */
+ sm->retry_number++;
Would it be better to increment retry number if
sm_state_mgr_send_master_sm_info_req call just below this succeeds ?
-- Hal
I'm not sure really.
All I was proposing was a minor variation to what you proposed:
to add a status return to sm_state_mgr_send_master_sm_info_req and only
increment the retry_number if that call was "successful".
Understood.
The current placement was to avoid potential race
with response handling
and the clearing of the counter there (incrementing after the response
were received).
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how this changes any
potential race condition other than perhaps a smaller time window.
With the current locking and moving the increment later you could end up
processing
the response (and clear the counter) and then increment it afterwords in
this function.
With the suggested patch you'd increment every time you would attempt to
send a
packet. Not perfect, but at least better than it used to be and it did
not introduce any race.
Seemed to me that this could happen with the current locking.
Yes, it looks to me like the locking here needs fixing. I'll send a
patch for this shortly...
OK, good. Do you want me to send a v2 rebased on top of this patch that
incorporate
your initial comment ?
Line
-- Hal
Line
+
/* Send a SubnGet(SMInfo) request to the remote sm (depends on
our state) */
sm_state_mgr_send_master_sm_info_req(sm);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
