On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:58 AM Ursula Braun <ubraun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/17/2018 02:20 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:13 AM Ursula Braun <ubraun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> >
> >> This problem should no longer show up with yesterday's net-next commit
> >> 569bc6436568 ("net/smc: no tx work trigger for fallback sockets").
> >
> > It definitely triggers on latest net-next, which includes 569bc6436568
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> Sorry, my fault.
> Your proposed patch solves the problem. On the other hand the purpose of
> smc_tx_init() has been to cover tx-related socket initializations needed
for
> connection sockets only. tx_work is something that should be scheduled
only
> for active connection sockets in non-fallback mode.
> Thus I prefer this alternate patch to solve the problem:
> ---
> net/smc/af_smc.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> --- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
> @@ -1362,14 +1362,18 @@ static int smc_setsockopt(struct socket
> }
> break;
> case TCP_NODELAY:
> - if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT && sk->sk_state !=
SMC_LISTEN) {
> + if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT &&
> + sk->sk_state != SMC_LISTEN &&
> + sk->sk_state != SMC_CLOSED) {
> if (val && !smc->use_fallback)
> mod_delayed_work(system_wq,
&smc->conn.tx_work,
> 0);
> }
> break;
> case TCP_CORK:
> - if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT && sk->sk_state !=
SMC_LISTEN) {
> + if (sk->sk_state != SMC_INIT &&
> + sk->sk_state != SMC_LISTEN &&
> + sk->sk_state != SMC_CLOSED) {
> if (!val && !smc->use_fallback)
> mod_delayed_work(system_wq,
&smc->conn.tx_work,
> 0);
> What do you think?
I think my patch is cleaner.
Deferring spinlock and workqueues setup is a recipe for disaster.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
