From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: listen(2) backlog changes in or around Linux 3.1?
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:08:39 +0200
Message-ID: <1350936519.8609.1239.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
References: <CAJgzZorigejCuFweNrvmkEJts3Um7exh1fYTH=4KrEcB=v=2SA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <507C4401.7050500@oracle.com>
	 <CAJgzZoqhw6HJxa6uRbekLMaVTDVOo92YDtzqHnZoRiQ8tq6G2g@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAJgzZoq9+KZpQ1tVQJUK++VVk4JfY9u8timaJ5q6wSYoF+_tog@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5080279F.80008@oracle.com> <5080340F.3050207@oracle.com>
	 <CAJgzZooJM7aj=K-idvdbwUOOmtDM6u-=gsVOs2OFZjiZwQP0zw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAGK4HS-tOE1uZR2PE+_DShEb3y5ZAn=dtECY1AmmyO2AmTVzTA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1350629413.2293.157.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <1350634013.2293.262.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <CAGK4HS_9mLzL9ESm=n5hvO0cw1hkHFMCSmBiYTBnqEMqQOvPvQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1350642562.2293.411.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210221251520.1684@cleese>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: enh <enh@google.com>,
	Venkat Venkatsubra <venkat.x.venkatsubra@oracle.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Vijay Subramanian <subramanian.vijay@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ea0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:65292 "EHLO
	mail-ea0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753331Ab2JVUIp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:08:45 -0400
Received: by mail-ea0-f174.google.com with SMTP id c13so951529eaa.19
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210221251520.1684@cleese>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

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)