From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: TCP keepalive timer problem Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:35:22 +0200 Message-ID: <87skfdl6qt.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> References: <0939B589FC103041945B9F13274963E303B1A9D4@CORPUSMX90A.corp.emc.com> <4A93E36C.8070502@gmail.com> <0939B589FC103041945B9F13274963E303B1AD89@CORPUSMX90A.corp.emc.com> <4A967FCE.3000807@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Li_Xin2@emc.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4A967FCE.3000807@gmail.com> (Eric Dumazet's message of "Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:45:02 +0200") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Eric Dumazet writes: > > Now, 7200 seconds might be inappropriate for special needs, and considering > there is no way to change tcp_retries2 for a given socket (only choice being the global > tcp_retries2 setting), I would vote for a change in our stack, to *relax* RFC, > and get smaller keepalive timers if possible. I think the better fix would be to just to only do that when tcp_retries2 > keep alive time. So keep the existing behaviour with default keep alive, but switch when the user defined a very short keep alive. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.