On 05/17/2018 05:28 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:58 AM Ursula Braun <ubr...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 05/17/2018 02:20 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:13 AM Ursula Braun <ubr...@linux.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This problem should no longer show up with yesterday's net-next commit
>>>> 569bc6436568 ("net/smc: no tx work trigger for fallback sockets").
>>>
>>> It definitely triggers on latest net-next, which includes 569bc6436568
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>
>> Sorry, my fault.
>
>> Your proposed patch solves the problem. On the other hand the purpose of
>> smc_tx_init() has been to cover tx-related socket initializations needed
> for
>> connection sockets only. tx_work is something that should be scheduled
> only
>> for active connection sockets in non-fallback mode.
>> Thus I prefer this alternate patch to solve the problem:
>
>> ---
>> net/smc/af_smc.c | 8 ++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
>> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
>> @@ -1362,14 +1362,18 @@ static int smc_setsockopt(struct socket
>> }
>> break;
>> case TCP_NODELAY:
>> - if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT && sk->sk_state !=
> SMC_LISTEN) {
>> + if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT &&
>> + sk->sk_state != SMC_LISTEN &&
>> + sk->sk_state != SMC_CLOSED) {
>> if (val && !smc->use_fallback)
>> mod_delayed_work(system_wq,
> &smc->conn.tx_work,
>> 0);
>> }
>> break;
>> case TCP_CORK:
>> - if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT && sk->sk_state !=
> SMC_LISTEN) {
>> + if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT &&
>> + sk->sk_state != SMC_LISTEN &&
>> + sk->sk_state != SMC_CLOSED) {
>> if (!val && !smc->use_fallback)
>> mod_delayed_work(system_wq,
> &smc->conn.tx_work,
>> 0);
>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think my patch is cleaner.
>
> Deferring spinlock and workqueues setup is a recipe for disaster.
>
If your solution is preferred, I agree. In this case my today's net/smc patch
net/smc: initialize tx_work before llc initial handshake
for the net-tree is obsolete.
