| Message ID | 7d236597235768dcf1885f317acb767840cb9e42.1742521397.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Delegated to: | Matthieu Baerts |
| Headers | show |
| Series | BPF path manager, part 6 | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| matttbe/checkpatch | warning | total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 27 lines checked |
| matttbe/shellcheck | success | MPTCP selftests files have not been modified |
| matttbe/build | success | Build and static analysis OK |
| matttbe/KVM_Validation__normal | success | Success! ✅ |
| matttbe/KVM_Validation__debug | success | Success! ✅ |
| matttbe/KVM_Validation__btf-normal__only_bpftest_all_ | success | Success! ✅ |
| matttbe/KVM_Validation__btf-debug__only_bpftest_all_ | success | Success! ✅ |
Hi Geliang, On 21/03/2025 02:45, Geliang Tang wrote: > From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > In mptcp_pm_subflow_check_next(), instead of reducing "pm->subflows" > for the in-kernel PM in __mptcp_pm_close_subflow(), this patch moves > "pm->subflows--;" forward to let it be used by both the userspace PM > and the in-kernel PM. Then mptcp_pm_is_userspace() here can be dropped. > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > --- > net/mptcp/pm.c | 15 ++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm.c b/net/mptcp/pm.c > index bb456e203665..a3fcb335c717 100644 > --- a/net/mptcp/pm.c > +++ b/net/mptcp/pm.c > @@ -531,13 +531,10 @@ void mptcp_pm_subflow_check_next(struct mptcp_sock *msk, > bool update_subflows; > > update_subflows = subflow->request_join || subflow->mp_join; > - if (mptcp_pm_is_userspace(msk)) { > - if (update_subflows) { > - spin_lock_bh(&pm->lock); > - pm->subflows--; > - spin_unlock_bh(&pm->lock); > - } > - return; > + if (update_subflows) { > + spin_lock_bh(&pm->lock); > + pm->subflows--; > + spin_unlock_bh(&pm->lock); Should we not simply call mptcp_pm_close_subflow() instead? It should be fine to call it for the userspace or BPF PMs as well, no? > } > > if (!pm->ops->subflow_established) > @@ -547,8 +544,8 @@ void mptcp_pm_subflow_check_next(struct mptcp_sock *msk, > return; > > spin_lock_bh(&pm->lock); > - if (update_subflows) > - __mptcp_pm_close_subflow(msk); > + if (update_subflows && msk->pm.subflows < mptcp_pm_get_subflows_max(msk)) > + WRITE_ONCE(msk->pm.accept_subflow, true); > > /* Even if this subflow is not really established, tell the PM to try > * to pick the next ones, if possible. Cheers, Matt
diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm.c b/net/mptcp/pm.c index bb456e203665..a3fcb335c717 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/pm.c +++ b/net/mptcp/pm.c @@ -531,13 +531,10 @@ void mptcp_pm_subflow_check_next(struct mptcp_sock *msk, bool update_subflows; update_subflows = subflow->request_join || subflow->mp_join; - if (mptcp_pm_is_userspace(msk)) { - if (update_subflows) { - spin_lock_bh(&pm->lock); - pm->subflows--; - spin_unlock_bh(&pm->lock); - } - return; + if (update_subflows) { + spin_lock_bh(&pm->lock); + pm->subflows--; + spin_unlock_bh(&pm->lock); } if (!pm->ops->subflow_established) @@ -547,8 +544,8 @@ void mptcp_pm_subflow_check_next(struct mptcp_sock *msk, return; spin_lock_bh(&pm->lock); - if (update_subflows) - __mptcp_pm_close_subflow(msk); + if (update_subflows && msk->pm.subflows < mptcp_pm_get_subflows_max(msk)) + WRITE_ONCE(msk->pm.accept_subflow, true); /* Even if this subflow is not really established, tell the PM to try * to pick the next ones, if possible.