[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101004190049.783f14ab@chocolatine.cbg.collabora.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 19:00:49 +0100
From: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AF_UNIX: Implement SO_TIMESTAMP and SO_TIMETAMPNS on
Unix sockets
Le Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:41:44 +0200,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> a écrit :
> Le lundi 04 octobre 2010 à 16:38 +0100, Alban Crequy a écrit :
> > Userspace applications can already request to receive timestamps
> > with: setsockopt(sockfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_TIMESTAMP, ...)
> >
> > Although setsockopt() returns zero (success), timestamps are not
> > added to the ancillary data. This patch fixes that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk>
> > ---
> > net/unix/af_unix.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c
> > index 617bea4..142ccea 100644
> > --- a/net/unix/af_unix.c
> > +++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c
> > @@ -1697,6 +1697,8 @@ static int unix_dgram_recvmsg(struct kiocb
> > *iocb, struct socket *sock, if (err)
> > goto out_free;
> >
> > + sock_recv_timestamp(msg, sk, skb);
> > +
> > if (!siocb->scm) {
> > siocb->scm = &tmp_scm;
> > memset(&tmp_scm, 0, sizeof(tmp_scm));
> > @@ -1877,6 +1879,8 @@ static int unix_stream_recvmsg(struct kiocb
> > *iocb, struct socket *sock, copied += chunk;
> > size -= chunk;
> >
> > + sock_recv_timestamp(msg, sk, skb);
> > +
> > /* Mark read part of skb as used */
> > if (!(flags & MSG_PEEK)) {
> > skb_pull(skb, chunk);
>
> Are you sure its needed for unix_stream case ?
I was about to say it does not cost anything to add it...
> We dont do this for TCP for example, only for datagrams.
>
> As shown in the past, sock_recv_timestamp() is a bit expensive because
> it takes care of many possible options.
Is it really expensive? It looks like a few flag checks in an inline
function to me.
> It would be better to use in AF_UNIX case (only software timestamps) :
>
> Solution 1)
> if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_RCVTSTAMP))
> __sock_recv_timestamp(msg, sk, skb);
>
> Solution 2)
> Or something already used elsewhere since 2.6.35 and commit
> 767dd03369ac1 (net: speedup sock_recv_ts_and_drops()) :
>
> sock_recv_ts_and_drops(msg, sk, skb);
>
>
> I would vote for the 1) solution
The patch in the next email implements the 1) solution on SOCK_DGRAM and
SOCK_SEQPACKET (without SOCK_STREAM).
--
Alban
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists