> On Jul 26, 2021, at 12:50 PM, Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 7/26/2021 10:46 AM, Chuck Lever wrote: >> /** >> * svc_rdma_wc_send - Invoked by RDMA provider for each polled Send WC >> * @cq: Completion Queue context >> @@ -275,11 +289,9 @@ static void svc_rdma_wc_send(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_wc *wc) >> trace_svcrdma_wc_send(wc, &ctxt->sc_cid); >> + svc_rdma_wake_send_waiters(rdma, 1); >> complete(&ctxt->sc_done); >> - atomic_inc(&rdma->sc_sq_avail); >> - wake_up(&rdma->sc_send_wait); > > This appears to change the order of wake_up() vs complete(). > Is that intentional? IIRC I reversed the order here to be consistent with the other Send completion handlers. > Is there any possibility of a false > scheduler activation, later leading to a second wakeup or poll? The two "wake-ups" here are not related to each other, and RPC Replies are transmitted already so this shouldn't have a direct impact on server latency. But I might not understand your question. -- Chuck Lever
