Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] smb: client: fast fail sends if need to reconnect

[Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@suse.de>]

On 09/29, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>> @@ -184,6 +214,9 @@ cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect(struct TCP_Server_Info *server,
>>                 }
>>         }
>>
>> +       if (shutdown)
>> +               kill_socket_queues(server);
>> +
>>         spin_lock(&cifs_tcp_ses_lock);
>Since this loop still holds cifs_tcp_ses_lock, It can sleep while
>holding a spinlock, causing a scheduling-while-atomic failure.

I totally missed that second loop, will handle that in v3.

AFAICS, the new set_need_reco() can be moved to after unlocking
cifs_tcp_ses_lock, as tcpStatus is already protected by srv_lock.
Any objections to that?

>The
>previous set_need_reco macro did not acquire a mutex.

Yes, the server mutex is needed to access/shutdown server->ssocket,
which is part of the core change in this patch.

>Please check sashiko's review comments.
>
>https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260928150355.850472-1-ematsumiya%40suse.de

The other concerns could be ignored, but I'll address them anyway in v3.


Cheers,

Enzo

>Thanks.
>>         list_for_each_entry_safe(server, nserver, &reco, rlist) {
>>                 list_del_init(&server->rlist);
>> @@ -365,9 +398,10 @@ static bool cifs_tcp_ses_needs_reconnect(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, int num
>>         cifs_dbg(FYI, "Mark tcp session as need reconnect\n");
>>         trace_smb3_reconnect(server->current_mid, server->conn_id,
>>                              server->hostname);
>> -       server->tcpStatus = CifsNeedReconnect;
>> -
>>         spin_unlock(&server->srv_lock);
>> +
>> +       set_need_reco(server);
>> +
>>         return true;