On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 10:18:52AM -0400, cel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I still see "RPC: Could not send backchannel reply error: -110"
> quite often, along with slow-running tests. Debugging shows that the
> backchannel is still stumbling when it has to queue a callback reply
> on a busy transport.
>
> Note that every one of these timeouts causes a connection loss by
> virtue of the xprt_conditional_disconnect() call in that arm of
> call_cb_transmit_status().
>
> I found that setting to_maxval is necessary to get the RPC timeout
> logic to behave whenever to_exponential is not set.
>
> Fixes: 57331a59ac0d ("NFSv4.1: Use the nfs_client's rpc timeouts for backchannel")
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/svc.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc.c b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> index 965a27806bfd..f4ddb2961042 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> @@ -1643,6 +1643,7 @@ void svc_process_bc(struct rpc_rqst *req, struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
> timeout.to_initval = req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_initval;
> timeout.to_retries = req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_retries;
> }
> + timeout.to_maxval = timeout.to_initval;
> memcpy(&req->rq_snd_buf, &rqstp->rq_res, sizeof(req->rq_snd_buf));
> task = rpc_run_bc_task(req, &timeout);
>
> --
> 2.45.1
>
Hi - would love to see this in 6.10-rc. Is there a chance that
could happen?
--
Chuck Lever
