6.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 6ddc9deacc1312762c2edd9de00ce76b00f69f7c ]
I still see "RPC: Could not send backchannel reply error: -110"
quite often, along with slow-running tests. Debugging shows that the
backchannel is still stumbling when it has to queue a callback reply
on a busy transport.
Note that every one of these timeouts causes a connection loss by
virtue of the xprt_conditional_disconnect() call in that arm of
call_cb_transmit_status().
I found that setting to_maxval is necessary to get the RPC timeout
logic to behave whenever to_exponential is not set.
Fixes: 57331a59ac0d ("NFSv4.1: Use the nfs_client's rpc timeouts for backchannel")
Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/sunrpc/svc.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc.c b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
index 2b4b1276d4e86..d9cda1e53a017 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/svc.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
@@ -1557,9 +1557,11 @@ void svc_process(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
*/
void svc_process_bc(struct rpc_rqst *req, struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
{
+ struct rpc_timeout timeout = {
+ .to_increment = 0,
+ };
struct rpc_task *task;
int proc_error;
- struct rpc_timeout timeout;
/* Build the svc_rqst used by the common processing routine */
rqstp->rq_xid = req->rq_xid;
@@ -1612,6 +1614,7 @@ void svc_process_bc(struct rpc_rqst *req, struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
timeout.to_initval = req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_initval;
timeout.to_retries = req->rq_xprt->timeout->to_retries;
}
+ timeout.to_maxval = timeout.to_initval;
memcpy(&req->rq_snd_buf, &rqstp->rq_res, sizeof(req->rq_snd_buf));
task = rpc_run_bc_task(req, &timeout);
--
2.43.0
