From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: is non-inheritance of congestion control algorithm from the listen socket a bug or a feature? Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:56:26 +0100 Message-ID: <1322603786.2596.36.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1322600212.2596.13.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1322603175.2596.31.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20111129.165205.91103035999089185.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: ycheng@google.com, rick.jones2@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:55325 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751020Ab1K2V4d (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:56:33 -0500 Received: by eaak14 with SMTP id k14so3676001eaa.19 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:56:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20111129.165205.91103035999089185.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 16:52 -0500, David Miller a =C3=A9crit= : > There is really no reason to keep the current behavior. >=20 > If an application sets the congestion control algorithm on a listenin= g > socket to a non-default value, what effect could possibly be intended= ? >=20 > Congestion control doesn't even come into play at all on a listening > socket, therefore the only logical expectation is that it inherits to > the child. >=20 > The only other logical behavior would be to forbid this operation on = a > listening socket, since it has no effect, but that doesn't make any > sense now does it? :-) Moreover, an application can use setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION) before calling listen() (while socket is still in CLOSE state)