public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Vitaliy Gusev <vgusev@openvz.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][NET] Fix never pruned tcp out-of-order queue
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:30:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <480467AA.2050808@firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200804151226.47729.vgusev@openvz.org>

Vitaliy Gusev wrote:
> On 15 April 2008 12:18:10 David Miller wrote:
>> From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:14:56 +0200
>>
>>> The main difference seems to be that
>>> sk_rmem_schedule/__sk_mem_schedule is called more often, but it is 
>>> unclear how this affects the ooo pruning which only checks
>>> the queue length anyways.
>> tcp_data_queue() would not do the tcp_prune_ofo_queue() in some
>> cases, it's the whole point of the patch.

I still think the guards are pretty much the same as before, sorry:)

> Yes, if second sk_rmem_schedule() failed then tcp_prune_ofo_queue() is force called
> and try sk_rmem_schedule() again.

Yes but that doesn't affect the ooo prune guards at all, they only check
rmem_alloc and neither sk_rmem_schedule() nor __sk_mem_schedule
change that. Also the two callers are the same too in their checks.

But why not repeat the whole prune for all cases in this case then?

e.g. you should probably at least repeat the third step (setting
pred_flags to 0) too.

-Andi


  reply	other threads:[~2008-04-15  8:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-04-14 17:21 [RFC][PATCH][NET] Fix never pruned tcp out-of-order queue Vitaliy Gusev
2008-04-15  7:34 ` David Miller
2008-04-15  7:59 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-15  8:01   ` David Miller
2008-04-15  8:14     ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-15  8:18       ` David Miller
2008-04-15  8:26         ` Vitaliy Gusev
2008-04-15  8:30           ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2008-04-15  9:33             ` Vitaliy Gusev
2008-04-15 11:59             ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2008-04-15 13:47               ` Vitaliy Gusev
2008-04-15 13:54               ` Vitaliy Gusev

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=480467AA.2050808@firstfloor.org \
    --to=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vgusev@openvz.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox