On 02.11.23 10:27, Li RongQing wrote:
these is less opportunity that conn->tx_pushing is not 1, since
tx_pushing is just checked with 1, so move the setting tx_pushing
to 1 after atomic_dec_and_test() return false, to avoid atomic_set
and smp_wmb in tx path when possible
I think we should avoid to use argument like "less opportunity" in
commit message. Because "less opportunity" does not mean "no
opportunity". Once it occurs, does it mean that what the patch changes
is useless or wrong?
Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@xxxxxxxxx>
---
net/smc/smc_tx.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/smc/smc_tx.c b/net/smc/smc_tx.c
index 3b0ff3b..72dbdee 100644
--- a/net/smc/smc_tx.c
+++ b/net/smc/smc_tx.c
@@ -667,8 +667,6 @@ int smc_tx_sndbuf_nonempty(struct smc_connection *conn)
return 0;
again:
- atomic_set(&conn->tx_pushing, 1);
- smp_wmb(); /* Make sure tx_pushing is 1 before real send */
rc = __smc_tx_sndbuf_nonempty(conn);
/* We need to check whether someone else have added some data into
@@ -677,8 +675,11 @@ int smc_tx_sndbuf_nonempty(struct smc_connection *conn)
* If so, we need to push again to prevent those data hang in the send
* queue.
*/
- if (unlikely(!atomic_dec_and_test(&conn->tx_pushing)))
+ if (unlikely(!atomic_dec_and_test(&conn->tx_pushing))) {
+ atomic_set(&conn->tx_pushing, 1);
+ smp_wmb(); /* Make sure tx_pushing is 1 before real send */
goto again;
+ }
return rc;
}
I'm afraid that the *if* statement would never be true, without setting
the value of &conn->tx_pushing firstly.
