From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp/dccp: remove twchain Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20131003.184549.1239745820432209741.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1380784922.19002.198.camel@edumazet-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20131003.175107.1919190333940976775.davem@davemloft.net> <1380837491.19002.240.camel@edumazet-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: eric.dumazet@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:41526 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755113Ab3JCWp4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:45:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1380837491.19002.240.camel@edumazet-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Eric Dumazet Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 14:58:11 -0700 > On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 17:51 -0400, David Miller wrote: >> From: Eric Dumazet >> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:22:02 -0700 >> >> > Current inet_ehash_bucket contains two chains, one for ESTABLISH (and >> > friend states) sockets, another for TIME_WAIT sockets only. >> > >> > As the hash table is sized to get at most one socket per bucket, it >> > makes little sense to have separate twchain, as it makes the lookup >> > slightly more complicated, and doubles hash table memory usage. >> >> The idea was that long standing time-wait sockets should be forced to >> provably never appear in same hash chains and thus cause interference >> with lookups on established sockets. >> >> On the other hand, moving sockets between these two tables has a >> non-trivial cost, and synchronization complexity. >> >> So perhaps your change gives the right tradeoff. >> >> Eric this patch needs to be respun against current net-next >> in order for it to apply cleanly, please do that and I'll add >> it. > > I think the main problem comes from this commit in net tree ? ... > net: do not call sock_put() on TIMEWAIT sockets ... > I think you could safely ignore the warnings > because of (tcp: shrink tcp6_timewait_sock by one cache line) latest changes > > patching file include/net/inet_timewait_sock.h > Hunk #1 succeeded at 141 (offset 5 lines). > Hunk #2 succeeded at 180 (offset 5 lines). > > Please tell me if I need to resend, thanks Oh that's right, I even read about it in your original patch email. I'll take care of it, thanks.