From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc [193.142.43.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32C133FC0 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 07:55:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fw by Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mN9TX-0000Rp-Ie; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 09:55:31 +0200 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 09:55:31 +0200 From: Florian Westphal To: Paolo Abeni Cc: Florian Westphal , mptcp@lists.linux.dev, Matthieu Baerts Subject: Re: [mptcp-next 2/2] mptcp: re-set push-pending bit on retransmit failure Message-ID: <20210906075531.GD23554@breakpoint.cc> References: <20210906060614.25217-1-fw@strlen.de> <20210906060614.25217-3-fw@strlen.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Paolo Abeni wrote: > > + /* Set PENDING again in case we found an ssk > > + * that could not accept more data > > + */ > > + if (unlikely(copied == 0) && > > + READ_ONCE(msk->snd_una) == msk->snd_nxt && ssk) > > + mptcp_check_and_set_pending(sk); > > @Florian: Why we need to check for ssk != NULL? Because I don't think it makes sense to re-try ASAP if we could not find a ssk, and instead defer until next firing of rtx timer. > Do we need something similar for __mptcp_subflow_push_pending(), too? I don't think so, its thats not invoked from the mptcp-release cb; also: > I'm wondering if this will cause a sort of 'spinning'/busy loop on > above condition inside mptcp_release_cb(). Hmm, right, that might indeed happen. It should be sae to remove the above clause and unconditioally wait for the reworked rtx timer to assert pending bit again.