[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1708412505-34470-10-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:01:34 +0800
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
wenjia@...ux.ibm.com,
jaka@...ux.ibm.com,
wintera@...ux.ibm.com,
guwen@...ux.alibaba.com
Cc: kuba@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com,
pabeni@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: [RFC net-next 09/20] net/smc: refator smc_switch_to_fallback
From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
Move code ahead which has no need protected by clcsock_release_lock,
On the one hand, this reduces the granularity of the critical area, and
on the other hand, for the inet version of SMC, the code protected by
the critical area is meaningless. This patch make it possible to invoke
smc_switch_to_fallback() in any context (IRQ .etc) within inet sock
version of SMC.
Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
---
net/smc/af_smc.c | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/smc/af_smc.c b/net/smc/af_smc.c
index 1381ac1..20abdda 100644
--- a/net/smc/af_smc.c
+++ b/net/smc/af_smc.c
@@ -909,16 +909,18 @@ static int smc_switch_to_fallback(struct smc_sock *smc, int reason_code)
{
int rc = 0;
+ /* no need protected by clcsock_release_lock, move head */
+ smc->use_fallback = true;
+ smc->fallback_rsn = reason_code;
+ smc_stat_fallback(smc);
+ trace_smc_switch_to_fallback(smc, reason_code);
+
mutex_lock(&smc->clcsock_release_lock);
if (!smc->clcsock) {
rc = -EBADF;
goto out;
}
- smc->use_fallback = true;
- smc->fallback_rsn = reason_code;
- smc_stat_fallback(smc);
- trace_smc_switch_to_fallback(smc, reason_code);
if (smc->sk.sk_socket && smc->sk.sk_socket->file) {
smc->clcsock->file = smc->sk.sk_socket->file;
smc->clcsock->file->private_data = smc->clcsock;
--
1.8.3.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists