On 10/29/2024 6:28 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
I'm open to switching to a per-session lock of some sort, but I don't see a real need here. Only one session will be used as the backchannel at a time, so there shouldn't be competing access between different sessions for the cl_lock. We are competing with the other uses of the cl_lock, but this one should be pretty quick. My preference would be to add extra locking only once it becomes clear that it's necessary.
I have a question on what you mean by "Only one session will be used as the backchannel". Does this mean that the server ignores backchannels for all but one random victim? That doesn't seem fair, or efficient. And what happens with nconnect > 1? Another question is, what clients are offering this many backchannel slots? Tom.
