Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758738AbXILTzv (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:55:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752373AbXILTzl (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:55:41 -0400 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:60730 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750974AbXILTzk (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:55:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:55:12 -0400 To: Wolfgang Walter Cc: Neil Brown , trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, netdev@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] sunrpc: make closing of old temporary sockets work (was: problems with lockd in 2.6.22.6) Message-ID: <20070912195512.GC13792@fieldses.org> References: <200709121407.11151.wolfgang.walter@studentenwerk.mhn.de> <18151.62510.891210.485277@notabene.brown> <20070912184222.GG4274@fieldses.org> <200709122140.57783.wolfgang.walter@studentenwerk.mhn.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200709122140.57783.wolfgang.walter@studentenwerk.mhn.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) From: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1590 Lines: 39 On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:40:57PM +0200, Wolfgang Walter wrote: > 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. Oh, got it. And the list manipulation is safe thanks to sv_lock. Neat, thanks. Can you verify that this solves your problem? --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/