On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, Chuck Lever wrote:
> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> There is no need to take down the whole system for these assertions.
>
> I'd rather not attempt a heroic save here, as some bug has occurred
> that has left the transport data structures in an unknown state.
> Just warn and then leak the left-over resources.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/svc.c | 11 +++++++----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Let's start here. Comments?
>
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc.c b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> index 587811a002c9..11a1d5e7f5c7 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> @@ -575,11 +575,14 @@ svc_destroy(struct kref *ref)
> timer_shutdown_sync(&serv->sv_temptimer);
>
> /*
> - * The last user is gone and thus all sockets have to be destroyed to
> - * the point. Check this.
> + * Remaining transports at this point are not expected.
> */
> - BUG_ON(!list_empty(&serv->sv_permsocks));
> - BUG_ON(!list_empty(&serv->sv_tempsocks));
> + if (unlikely(!list_empty(&serv->sv_permsocks)))
> + pr_warn("SVC: permsocks remain for %s\n",
> + serv->sv_program->pg_name);
I would go with WARN_ON_ONCE() but I agree with the principle.
Maybe
WARN_ONCE(!list_empty(&serv->sv_permsocks),
"SVC: permsocks remain for %s\n",
serv->sv_program->pg_name);
This gives the stack trace which might be helpful.
But
Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
if you prefer it the way it is.
NeilBrown
> + if (unlikely(!list_empty(&serv->sv_tempsocks)))
> + pr_warn("SVC: tempsocks remain for %s\n",
> + serv->sv_program->pg_name);
>
> cache_clean_deferred(serv);
>
>
>
>
