> On May 15, 2023, at 12:54 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-05-15 at 09:32 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The -ENOMEM arm could fire repeatedly if the system runs low on
>> memory, so remove it.
>>
>> Don't bother to trace -EAGAIN error events, since those fire after
>> a listener is created (with no work done) and once again after an
>> accept has been handled successfully (again, with no work done).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 9 ++-------
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>> index e0fb65e90af2..2058641ab9f6 100644
>> --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>> @@ -885,13 +885,8 @@ static struct svc_xprt *svc_tcp_accept(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
>> clear_bit(XPT_CONN, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>> err = kernel_accept(sock, &newsock, O_NONBLOCK);
>> if (err < 0) {
>> - if (err == -ENOMEM)
>> - printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: no more sockets!\n",
>> - serv->sv_name);
>> - else if (err != -EAGAIN)
>> - net_warn_ratelimited("%s: accept failed (err %d)!\n",
>> - serv->sv_name, -err);
>> - trace_svcsock_accept_err(xprt, serv->sv_name, err);
>> + if (err != -EAGAIN)
>> + trace_svcsock_accept_err(xprt, serv->sv_name, err);
>
> Would this be better done as a TP_CONDITION tracepoint?
I looked at doing that.
svcsock_accept_err is in a declared class. I would need to
split that into two trace events, one CONDITIONAL and the
other not. svc_tcp_accept() is not a hot path, so it really
isn't worth a whole lot of churn.
Let me know if there's some benefit aside from a bit of
code cleanliness that I forgot.
>> return NULL;
>> }
>> set_bit(XPT_CONN, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Chuck Lever
