From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:57574 "EHLO
        aserp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751563AbeBVA1X (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 21 Feb 2018 19:27:23 -0500
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 19:26:46 -0500
From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, rds-devel@oss.oracle.com,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] RDS: deliver zerocopy completion notification
 with data as an optimization
Message-ID: <20180222002646.GI15244@oracle.com>
References: <1519244381-138747-1-git-send-email-sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com>
 <CAF=yD-LecYGeH1Wg3kL-pDDKaFX0pbXzr_dfVPrsrBL3uL8VWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180221221428.GG15244@oracle.com>
 <CAF=yD-KuLHa=og50nw5MQpsN8dgCPJ+iFhiCVF=OvkVJFe8knA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180221230355.GH15244@oracle.com>
 <CAF=yD-+oihB6Opusn1hBVsEvk654BEg2LN6vXUtwS4q+2gkivQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAF=yD-+oihB6Opusn1hBVsEvk654BEg2LN6vXUtwS4q+2gkivQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On (02/21/18 18:45), Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> 
> I do mean returning 0 instead of -EAGAIN if control data is ready.
> Something like
> 
> @@ -611,7 +611,8 @@ int rds_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, struct msghdr
> *msg, size_t size,
> 
>                 if (!rds_next_incoming(rs, &inc)) {
>                         if (nonblock) {
> -                               ret = -EAGAIN;
> +                               ncookies = rds_recvmsg_zcookie(rs, msg);
> +                               ret = ncookies ? 0 : -EAGAIN;
>                                 break;
>                         }

Yes, but you now have an implicit branch based on ncookies, so I'm
not sure it saved all that much? like I said let me revisit this

> By the way, the put_cmsg is unconditional even if the caller did
> not supply msg_control. So it is basically no longer safe to ever
> call read, recv or recvfrom on a socket if zerocopy notifications
> are outstanding.

Wait, I thought put_cmsg already checks for these things. 

> It is possible to check msg_controllen before even deciding whether
> to try to dequeue notifications (and take the lock). I see that this is
> not common. But RDS of all cases seems to do this, in
> rds_notify_queue_get:

yes the comment above that code suggests that this bit of code
was done to avoid calling put_cmsg while holding the rs_lock.

One bit of administrivia though- if I now drop sk_error_queue for
PF_RDS, I'll have to fix selftests in the same patch too, so the
patch will get a bit bulky (and thus a bit more difficult to review).