Re: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once

Eric Dumazet
2009-01-09T15:43:52Z

Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> David Miller a écrit :
>> I'm not applying this until someone explains to me why
>> we should remove this test from the splice receive but
>> keep it in the tcp_recvmsg() code where it has been
>> essentially forever.

Reading again tcp_recvmsg(), I found it already is able to eat several skb
even in nonblocking mode.

setsockopt(5, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVLOWAT, [61440], 4) = 0
ioctl(5, FIONBIO, [1]) = 0
poll([{fd=5, events=POLLIN, revents=POLLIN}], 1, -1) = 1
recv(5, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 65536, MSG_DONTWAIT) = 65536
write(3, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 65536) = 65536
poll([{fd=5, events=POLLIN, revents=POLLIN}], 1, -1) = 1
recv(5, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 65536, MSG_DONTWAIT) = 65536
write(3, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 65536) = 65536
poll([{fd=5, events=POLLIN, revents=POLLIN}], 1, -1) = 1
recv(5, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 65536, MSG_DONTWAIT) = 65536
write(3, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 65536) = 65536
poll([{fd=5, events=POLLIN, revents=POLLIN}], 1, -1) = 1
recv(5, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 65536, MSG_DONTWAIT) = 65536
write(3, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 65536) = 65536

David, if you referred to code at line 1374 of net/ipv4/tcp.c, I believe there is
no issue with it. We really want to break from this loop if !timeo .

Willy patch makes splice() behaving like tcp_recvmsg(), but we might call
tcp_cleanup_rbuf() several times, with copied=1460 (for each frame processed)

I wonder if the right fix should be done in tcp_read_sock() : this is the
one who should eat several skbs IMHO, if we want optimal ACK generation.

We break out of its loop at line 1246

if (!desc->count) /* this test is always true */
break;

(__tcp_splice_read() set count to 0, right before calling tcp_read_sock())

So code at line 1246 (tcp_read_sock()) seems wrong, or pessimistic at least.