Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net/smc: Introduce a specific sysctl for TEST_LINK time

[Wen Gu]

On 2022/9/20 16:21, dust.li wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 02:23:09PM +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
> > On 2022/9/20 12:55, dust.li wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:53:54AM +0800, Wen Gu wrote:

> > > > +++ b/net/smc/smc_llc.h
> > > > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> > > >
> > > > #define SMC_LLC_WAIT_FIRST_TIME		(5 * HZ)
> > > > #define SMC_LLC_WAIT_TIME		(2 * HZ)
> > > > +#define SMC_LLC_TESTLINK_DEFAULT_TIME	30
> > >
> > > I'm wondering why we don't follow the upper to macros using (30 * HZ) ?
> > Thanks for the reivew.
> >
> > Because the value of sysctl_smcr_testlink_time is in seconds, and the value
> > of llc_testlink_time is jiffies.
> >
> > I have thought about
> > 1) using proc_dointvec_jiffies as sysctl's proc_handler just like TCP does.
> >    But proc_dointvec_jiffies has no minimum limit, value 0 makes no sense for SMC testlink.
>
> Maybe 0 means disable the LLC TEST LINK ?
>
>
> > 2) using proc_dointvec_ms_jiffies_minmax as proc_handler. But millisecond interval
> >    seems expensive for SMC test link.
> >
> > So, I choose to use proc_dointvec_minmax, make sysctl_smcr_testlink_time in
> > seconds, and convert to jiffies when assigning to llc_testlink_time.
>
> If proc_dointvec_jiffies_minmax is really the problem, maybe you can
> write your own proc handler.

Oops, I didn't noticed that value 0 means disabling LLC testlink in smc_llc_link_active().

So no need to set the minimum limit and proc_dointvec_jiffies will be fine. I will send a v2 to improve it.

Thanks,
Wen Gu