[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200709122140.57783.wolfgang.walter@studentenwerk.mhn.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:40:57 +0200
From: Wolfgang Walter <wolfgang.walter@...dentenwerk.mhn.de>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, trond.myklebust@....uio.no,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sunrpc: make closing of old temporary sockets work (was: problems with lockd in 2.6.22.6)
On Wednesday 12 September 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:14:06PM +0200, Neil Brown wrote:
> > So it is in 2.6.21 and later and should probably go to .stable for .21
> > and .22.
> >
> > Bruce: for you :-)
>
> OK, thanks! But, (as is alas often the case) I'm still confused:
>
> > if (!test_and_set_bit(SK_OLD, &svsk->sk_flags))
> > continue;
> > - if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) || test_bit(SK_BUSY, &svsk->sk_flags))
> > + if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) > 1
> > + || test_bit(SK_BUSY, &svsk->sk_flags))
> > continue;
> > atomic_inc(&svsk->sk_inuse);
> > list_move(le, &to_be_aged);
>
> What is it that ensures svsk->sk_inuse isn't incremented or SK_BUSY set
> after that test? Not all the code that does either of those is under
> the same serv->sv_lock lock that this code is.
>
This should not matter - SK_CLOSED may be set at any time.
svc_age_temp_sockets only detaches the socket, sets SK_CLOSED and then
enqueues it. If SK_BUSY is set its already enqueued and svc_sock_enqueue
ensures that it is not enqueued twice.
Regards,
--
Wolfgang Walter
Studentenwerk München
Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists