The overhead will certainly exist, but compared with the benefits, I
think it should be acceptable. If you do care, maybe we can add a switch
to control it.
I am wondering if there would introduce more overhead, compared with
original implement?
+
+drop:
+ dst_release(dst);
+ tcp_listendrop(sk);
+ return NULL;
+}
+
static struct smc_hashinfo smc_v4_hashinfo = {
.lock = __RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED(smc_v4_hashinfo.lock),
};
@@ -1491,6 +1519,9 @@ static void smc_listen_out(struct smc_sock *new_smc)
struct smc_sock *lsmc = new_smc->listen_smc;
struct sock *newsmcsk = &new_smc->sk;
+ if (tcp_sk(new_smc->clcsock->sk)->syn_smc)
+ atomic_dec(&lsmc->smc_pendings);
+
if (lsmc->sk.sk_state == SMC_LISTEN) {
lock_sock_nested(&lsmc->sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
smc_accept_enqueue(&lsmc->sk, newsmcsk);
@@ -2096,6 +2127,9 @@ static void smc_tcp_listen_work(struct work_struct *work)
if (!new_smc)
continue;
+ if (tcp_sk(new_smc->clcsock->sk)->syn_smc)
+ atomic_inc(&lsmc->smc_pendings);
+
new_smc->listen_smc = lsmc;
new_smc->use_fallback = lsmc->use_fallback;
new_smc->fallback_rsn = lsmc->fallback_rsn;
@@ -2163,6 +2197,15 @@ static int smc_listen(struct socket *sock, int backlog)
smc->clcsock->sk->sk_data_ready = smc_clcsock_data_ready;
smc->clcsock->sk->sk_user_data =
(void *)((uintptr_t)smc | SK_USER_DATA_NOCOPY);
+
+ /* save origin ops */
+ smc->ori_af_ops = inet_csk(smc->clcsock->sk)->icsk_af_ops;
+
+ smc->af_ops = *smc->ori_af_ops;
+ smc->af_ops.syn_recv_sock = smc_tcp_syn_recv_sock;
+
+ inet_csk(smc->clcsock->sk)->icsk_af_ops = &smc->af_ops;
Only save syn_recv_sock? Maybe this comment is confusing，
‘Copy the origin ops’ is better, the origin ops is pointer to a const
structure, we must copy it all, and repointer it to our structure. so
the copy/save is necessary.
Thanks.
Consider to save syn_recv_sock this field only? There seems no need to
save this ops all.
Thank you,
Tony Lu
