[PATCH 06/18] nvme-tcp: call 'queue->data_ready()' in nvme_tcp_data_ready()

[Hannes Reinecke]

On 3/21/23 14:44, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> 
>> Call the original data_ready() callback in nvme_tcp_data_ready()
>> to avoid a receive stall.
> 
> Can you please improve the description to include what is the stall?
> For example, does the stall exist today? If it is, I would like to
> separate such patches from this set and include them asap.
> 
That is actually particular to the TLS implementation, as it uses the 
'data_ready' callback to produce the data which can be read by eg recvmsg().

Without this call there's no data to peruse for recvmsg().

But I'm not _that_ deep into networking details to know whether this is 
TLS specific or an issue with any data_ready callback.
I assume the latter, but then again, who knows.

Hence the slightly vague description.

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare at suse.de>
>> ---
>>   drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c | 8 +++++---
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c b/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c
>> index 0e14b1b90855..0512eb289dcf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c
>> @@ -936,12 +936,14 @@ static void nvme_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>>       trace_sk_data_ready(sk);
>> -    read_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
>> -    queue = sk->sk_user_data;
>> +    rcu_read_lock_bh();
> 
> Now I understand your comment from a previous patch.
> Can you explain why is this convention needed?
> 
> I would prefer to have it as a separate patch with an
> explanation to why it is needed.
> 
This is the slightly odd socket callback handling.
Any driver is free to set the socket callbacks, but it has to be aware 
that it might not be the only one in the stack doing so.
So one has to be prepared that the callbacks are set already, so we 
should be calling them prior to our callback.

>> +    queue = rcu_dereference_sk_user_data(sk);
>> +    if (queue->data_ready)
>> +        queue->data_ready(sk);
> 
> Is the tls data_ready call sync or async? just for general knowledge?
> 
> 
Sync, I guess. Otherwise we wouldn't be needing the lock ...

>>       if (likely(queue && queue->rd_enabled) &&
>>           !test_bit(NVME_TCP_Q_POLLING, &queue->flags))
>>           queue_work_on(queue->io_cpu, nvme_tcp_wq, &queue->io_work);
>> -    read_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
>> +    rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>>   }
>>   static void nvme_tcp_write_space(struct sock *sk)

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		           Kernel Storage Architect
hare at suse.de			                  +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstr. 146, 90461 Nürnberg
Managing Directors: I. Totev, A. Myers, A. McDonald, M. B. Moerman
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)