[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1432738585.4060.392.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 07:56:25 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Ido Yariv <ido@...ery.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@...gle.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ido Yariv <idox.yariv@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: tcp: Fix a PTO timing granularity issue
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 10:40 -0400, Ido Yariv wrote:
> HZ=100 is used on some embedded platforms, so it's still something we
> have to deal with unfortunately..
>
> Since the '2' here is a lower bound, and msecs_to_jiffies(10) will
> return values greater than 2 for HZ>100 anyway, always ensuring the
> 2 jiffies lower bound shouldn't impact the behavior when HZ=1000.
>
> However, as far as I can tell, comparing msecs_to_jiffies(10) to 2, or
> comparing the whole timeout to 2 doesn't make much difference, since
> msecs_to_jiffies isn't inlined.
>
> In other words, keeping the #if shouldn't make much difference in behavior,
> but will save the small comparison.
Yes, I guess David point is to have a macro in include/linux/tcp.h so
that we can have a nice comment, and not having #if ... in a C file.
Maybe other timers in TCP need the same care (I am not asking you to
find them, but having a macro would ease things perhaps)
--
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