> On Sep 18, 2023, at 8:02 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
I couldn't think of any additional value that a stack
trace would provide over which upper layer protocol
was calling, which is provided by pg_name.
> But
>
> Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
>
> if you prefer it the way it is.
WARN_ONCE is a more conservative change, so let's
do that.
> 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);
--
Chuck Lever
