From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
borisp@nvidia.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, maximmi@nvidia.com,
tariqt@nvidia.com, vfedorenko@novek.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] tls: rx: don't consider sock_rcvtimeo() cumulative
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 22:04:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0daf062cb59776a19b142eeb48b46db0878cc353.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220728084244.7c654a6e@kernel.org>
On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 08:42 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:50:03 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > I have a possibly dumb question: this patch seems to introduce a change
> > of behavior (timeo re-arming after every progress vs a comulative one),
> > while re-reading the thread linked above it I (mis?)understand that the
> > timeo re-arming is the current behavior?
> >
> > Could you please clarify/help me understand this better?
>
> There're two places we use timeo - waiting for the exclusive reader
> lock and waiting for data. Currently (net-next as of now) we behave
> cumulatively in the former and re-arm in the latter.
I see it now, thanks for the pointers.
>
> That's to say if we have a timeo of 50ms, and spend 10ms on the lock,
> the wait for each new data record must be shorter than 40ms.
>
> Does that make more sense?
Yes.
For the records, I feared a change of behavior that could break
existing user-space applications expecting/dependending on blocking
recvmsg() completing in ~timeo (yep, modulo timer precision - which is
reasonably good for "short" timers), but it looks like there is no
actual overall behaviour change.
So I'm fine with this patch.
Thanks!
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-28 20:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-27 3:15 [PATCH net-next 0/4] tls: rx: follow ups to rx work Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-27 3:15 ` [PATCH net-next 1/4] selftests: tls: handful of memrnd() and length checks Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-27 3:15 ` [PATCH net-next 2/4] tls: rx: don't consider sock_rcvtimeo() cumulative Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-28 13:50 ` Paolo Abeni
2022-07-28 15:42 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-28 15:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-07-28 20:04 ` Paolo Abeni [this message]
2022-07-27 3:15 ` [PATCH net-next 3/4] tls: strp: rename and multithread the workqueue Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-27 3:15 ` [PATCH net-next 4/4] tls: rx: fix the false positive warning Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-29 5:00 ` [PATCH net-next 0/4] tls: rx: follow ups to rx work patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0daf062cb59776a19b142eeb48b46db0878cc353.camel@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=borisp@nvidia.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=maximmi@nvidia.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tariqt@nvidia.com \
--cc=vfedorenko@novek.ru \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.