[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJAADq5UzeMhd31_OEySeT5Z7gJ989CyHQ1oGfO5hu3zg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:05:02 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjanvandeven@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 13/20] timer: Switch to a non cascading wheel
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Original TCP RFCs tell timeout is infinite ;)
>>
>> Practically, conntrack has a 5 days timeout, but I really doubt anyone
>> expects an idle TCP flow to stay 'alive' when nothing is sent for 5
>> days.
>
> So would 37hrs ~= 1.5 days be a reasonable cutoff or will stuff fall apart and
> people be surprised?
>
It seems very reasonable to me at least.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists