Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Vijay Subramanian <subramanian.vijay@gmail.com>
Cc: enh <enh@google.com>,
	Venkat Venkatsubra <venkat.x.venkatsubra@oracle.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: listen(2) backlog changes in or around Linux 3.1?
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:08:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1350936519.8609.1239.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210221251520.1684@cleese>

On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 13:00 -0700, Vijay Subramanian wrote:
> >
> > If we send a SYNACK, then receive the ACK from client, and the acceptq
> > is full, we should reset the connexion. Right now we have kind of stupid
> > situation, were we drop the ACK, and leave the REQ in the SYN_RECV
> > state, so we retransmit SYNACKS.
> >
> 
> 
> It seems the third ack is remembered in inet_rsk(req)->acked in
> tcp_check_req(). However, because of the order in which the tests are performed, 
> server stills retransmits the synack needlessly. Following patch 
> (for review) prevents this synack retransmission if third ack has been 
> received.
> 
> The request_sock will expire in around 30 seconds and will be dropped if it does
> not move into accept_queue by then.  Maybe we should also call 
> req->rsk_ops->send_reset(sk,skb); 
> when the request_sock expires and is dropped?
> 

Not sure its needed, and we are under stress.

> 
> net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c |    5 ++---
>   1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> index d34ce29..4e8e52e 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> @@ -598,9 +598,8 @@ void inet_csk_reqsk_queue_prune(struct sock *parent,
>                                                 &expire, &resend);
>                                  req->rsk_ops->syn_ack_timeout(parent, req);
>                                  if (!expire &&
> -                                   (!resend ||
> -                                    !req->rsk_ops->rtx_syn_ack(parent, req, NULL) ||
> -                                    inet_rsk(req)->acked)) {
> +                                   (!resend || inet_rsk(req)->acked ||
> +                                    !req->rsk_ops->rtx_syn_ack(parent, req, NULL))) {
>                                          unsigned long timeo;
> 
>                                          if (req->retrans++ == 0)

I wonder then if we dont need to retransmit the synack when req moves
into accept_queue then ?

Or else how the client can 'knows' it can send data to server ?

All these facilities sound very complex and not really usable by clients
(ie users not willing to wait more than few seconds anyway)

  reply	other threads:[~2012-10-22 20:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-12 23:40 listen(2) backlog changes in or around Linux 3.1? enh
2012-10-15 17:12 ` Venkat Venkatsubra
2012-10-15 17:26   ` enh
2012-10-15 21:30     ` Venkat Venkatsubra
2012-10-16 23:31     ` enh
2012-10-18 16:00       ` Venkat Venkatsubra
2012-10-18 16:53         ` Venkat Venkatsubra
2012-10-18 17:20           ` enh
2012-10-19  6:02             ` Vijay Subramanian
2012-10-19  6:50               ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-19  8:06                 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-19  9:14                   ` Vijay Subramanian
2012-10-19 10:29                     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-19 11:39                       ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-22 20:00                       ` Vijay Subramanian
2012-10-22 20:08                         ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2012-10-22 22:11                           ` Vijay Subramanian
2012-10-25 22:50                             ` Eric Dumazet
2012-10-25 23:16                               ` Vijay Subramanian
2012-10-18 16:54       ` Eric Dumazet

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=1350936519.8609.1239.camel@edumazet-glaptop \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=enh@google.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=subramanian.vijay@gmail.com \
    --cc=venkat.x.venkatsubra@oracle.com \
    /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