> On Jan 3, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 1/3/2019 11:05 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 10:29 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>> Hi Trond-
>>>
>>> I was curious about this one because yesterday I saw evidence (for
>>> other reasons) that rq_bytes_sent wasn't always zeroed when it should
>>> be.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 2, 2019, at 5:53 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When we resend a request, ensure that the 'rq_bytes_sent' is reset
>>>> to zero.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> net/sunrpc/clnt.c | 1 -
>>>> net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 1 +
>>>> 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>>>> index 24cbddc44c88..2189fbc4c570 100644
>>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>>>> @@ -1738,7 +1738,6 @@ rpc_xdr_encode(struct rpc_task *task)
>>>> xdr_buf_init(&req->rq_rcv_buf,
>>>> req->rq_rbuffer,
>>>> req->rq_rcvsize);
>>>> - req->rq_bytes_sent = 0;
>>>
>>> I agree this line is not sufficient, and it should be moved.
>>> Not every retransmission requires a re-encode. However, the
>>> patch description should explain that, and it probably needs
>>> a Fixes: tag.
>>>
>>> Can you now also remove the same line from xprt_request_init
>>> and xprt_init_bc_request ?
>>>
>>> Also, I notice that UDP does not touch rq_bytes_sent. Since
>>> RDMA also does not use rq_bytes_sent, maybe the same line
>>> can be removed from xprtrdma/transport.c and
>>> xprtrdma/backchannel.c ?
>> Sure.
>> So please note that rq_bytes_sent == 0 no longer means "this request
>> needs to be retransmitted" and we no longer test for it in
>> net/sunrpc/clnt.c. We do still have a couple of tests of rq_bytes_sent
>> in net/sunrpc/xprt.c and net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c, but those are more
>> about checking if a transmission of that request is currently in
>> progress, in which case we don't want to queue anything in front of it
>> on the transmission queue, and we don't want to abort the transmission
>> unless we also close the socket.
>
> I think rq_bytes_sent is all about managing sends atomically. On stream
> transports (which allow buffering partial segments), it would be fatal to allow intermingling. On datagram transports, it's a non-issue since
> no sends are ever partial.
>
> IOW, couldn't rq_bytes_sent simply be a boolean?
I read somewhere recently that a boolean would take up as much space
as a u32 in rpc_rqst. Not sure it saves much.
I would be interested in removing rq_bytes_sent from generic paths,
as a minor optimization. It seems to be something that stream
transports need, but the others don't.
> Tom.
>
>> The intention now is that if we know the request needs retransmission
>> (due to a transport connection loss or a timeout), then we just add it
>> to the transmission queue.
>>>> p = rpc_encode_header(task);
>>>> if (p == NULL) {
>>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
>>>> index 73547d17d3c6..9075ae150ae5 100644
>>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
>>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
>>>> @@ -1151,6 +1151,7 @@ xprt_request_enqueue_transmit(struct rpc_task
>>>> *task)
>>>> struct rpc_xprt *xprt = req->rq_xprt;
>>>>
>>>> if (xprt_request_need_enqueue_transmit(task, req)) {
>>>> + req->rq_bytes_sent = 0;
>>>> spin_lock(&xprt->queue_lock);
>>>> /*
>>>> * Requests that carry congestion control credits are
>>>> added
>>>
>>> So I'm not convinced this covers every case. I need some
>>> time to investigate.
>> It should normally cover all cases. As I said, the only remaining tests
>> are in xprt.c and xprtsock.c
--
Chuck Lever
