[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iKWTrgEp3QY34mNqVAx09fSxHUh+oHRTd6=aWurGS7qWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 21:31:24 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: menglong8.dong@...il.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
dsahern@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: tcp: check timeout by
icsk->icsk_timeout in tcp_retransmit_timer()
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 2:52 PM <menglong8.dong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
>
> In tcp_retransmit_timer(), a window shrunk connection will be regarded
> as timeout if 'tcp_jiffies32 - tp->rcv_tstamp > TCP_RTO_MAX'. This is not
> right all the time.
>
> The retransmits will become zero-window probes in tcp_retransmit_timer()
> if the 'snd_wnd==0'. Therefore, the icsk->icsk_rto will come up to
> TCP_RTO_MAX sooner or later.
>
> However, the timer is not precise enough, as it base on timer wheel.
> Sorry that I am not good at timer, but I know the concept of time-wheel.
> The longer of the timer, the rougher it will be. So the timeout is not
> triggered after TCP_RTO_MAX, but 122877ms as I tested.
>
> Therefore, 'tcp_jiffies32 - tp->rcv_tstamp > TCP_RTO_MAX' is always true
> once the RTO come up to TCP_RTO_MAX.
>
> Fix this by replacing the 'tcp_jiffies32' with '(u32)icsk->icsk_timeout',
> which is exact the timestamp of the timeout.
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
> ---
> net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c
> index 470f581eedd4..3a20db15a186 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c
> @@ -511,7 +511,11 @@ void tcp_retransmit_timer(struct sock *sk)
> tp->snd_una, tp->snd_nxt);
> }
> #endif
> - if (tcp_jiffies32 - tp->rcv_tstamp > TCP_RTO_MAX) {
> + /* It's a little rough here, we regard any valid packet that
> + * update tp->rcv_tstamp as the reply of the retransmitted
> + * packet.
> + */
> + if ((u32)icsk->icsk_timeout - tp->rcv_tstamp > TCP_RTO_MAX) {
> tcp_write_err(sk);
> goto out;
> }
Hmm, this looks like a net candidate, since this is unrelated to the
other patches ?
Neal, what do you think ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists