This should not contribute to load, since it¹s called out of the ptlrpcd
daemons.
On 12/18/17, 1:18 AM, "lustre-devel on behalf of NeilBrown"
<lustre-devel-boun...@lists.lustre.org on behalf of ne...@suse.com> wrote:
>replace l_wait_event() with wait_event_timeout() and explicit
>loop. This approach is easier to understand.
>
>Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <ne...@suse.com>
>---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c
>b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c
>index 3e6d22beb9f5..bb8c9ab68f5f 100644
>--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c
>+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c
>@@ -2500,7 +2500,6 @@ static int ptlrpc_unregister_reply(struct
>ptlrpc_request *request, int async)
> {
> int rc;
> wait_queue_head_t *wq;
>- struct l_wait_info lwi;
>
> /* Might sleep. */
> LASSERT(!in_interrupt());
>@@ -2543,16 +2542,17 @@ static int ptlrpc_unregister_reply(struct
>ptlrpc_request *request, int async)
> * Network access will complete in finite time but the HUGE
> * timeout lets us CWARN for visibility of sluggish NALs
> */
>- lwi = LWI_TIMEOUT_INTERVAL(LONG_UNLINK * HZ,
>- HZ, NULL, NULL);
>- rc = l_wait_event(*wq, !ptlrpc_client_recv_or_unlink(request),
>- &lwi);
>- if (rc == 0) {
>+ int cnt = 0;
>+ while (cnt < LONG_UNLINK &&
>+ (rc = wait_event_timeout(*wq,
>+
>!ptlrpc_client_recv_or_unlink(request),
>+ HZ)) == 0)
>+ cnt += 1;
>+ if (rc > 0) {
> ptlrpc_rqphase_move(request, request->rq_next_phase);
> return 1;
> }
>
>- LASSERT(rc == -ETIMEDOUT);
> DEBUG_REQ(D_WARNING, request,
> "Unexpectedly long timeout receiving_reply=%d
> req_ulinked=%d
>reply_unlinked=%d",
> request->rq_receiving_reply,
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>lustre-devel mailing list
>lustre-de...@lists.lustre.org
>http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
