On 20.11.23 04:20, Dust Li wrote:
>> It seems to me that the purpose of conn->tx_pushing is
>> a) Serve as a mutex, so only one thread per conn will call __smc_tx_sndbuf_nonempty().
>> b) Repeat, in case some other thread has added data to sndbuf concurrently.
>>
>> I agree that this patch does not change the behaviour of this function and removes an
>> atomic_set() in the likely path.
>>
>> I wonder however: All callers of smc_tx_sndbuf_nonempty() must hold the socket lock.
>> So how can we ever run in a concurrency situation?
>> Is this handling of conn->tx_pushing necessary at all?
> Hi Sandy,
>
> Overall, I think you are right. But there is something we need to take care.
>
> Before commit 6b88af839d20 ("net/smc: don't send in the BH context if
> sock_owned_by_user"), we used to call smc_tx_pending() in the soft IRQ,
> without checking sock_owned_by_user(), which would caused a race condition
> because bh_lock_sock() did not honor sock_lock(). To address this issue,
> I have added the tx_pushing mechanism. However, with commit 6b88af839d20,
> we now defer the transmission if sock_lock() is held by the user.
> Therefore, there should no longer be a race condition. Nevertheless, if
> we remove the tx_pending mechanism, we must always remember not to call
> smc_tx_sndbuf_nonempty() in the soft IRQ when the user holds the sock lock.
>
> Thanks
> Dust
ok, I understand.
So whoever is willing to give it a try and simplify smc_tx_sndbuf_nonempty(),
should remember to document that requirement/precondition.
Maybe in a Function context section of a kernel-doc function decription?
(as described in https://docs.kernel.org/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html)
Although smc_tx_sndbuf_nonempty() is not exported, this format is helpful.
