[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090113015614.3b815ad7.billfink@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:56:14 -0500
From: Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi, zbr@...emap.net,
bert.hubert@...herlabs.nl, h.willstrand@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sendfile()? Re: SO_LINGER dead: I get an immediate RST on
2.6.24?
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, to hit this corner case, just after
> > the final TCP write, there would have to be no packets in flight
> > together with a zero TCP window. To make it more bullet-proof, I
> > guess after seeing a zero tcpi_unacked, an additional small delay
> > should be performed, and then rechecking for a zero tcpi_unacked.
> > I don't see anything else obvious (to me anyway) in the tcp_info
> > that would be particularly helpful in handling this.
>
> What's wrong with idiag_wqueue? Isn't that a much more direct
> way to get this?
I'm not familiar with idiag_wqueue, but it sounds like it has something
to do with INET_DIAG/INET_TCP_DIAG. It was a long time ago, but I seem
to recall that using INET_DIAG had a negative impact on performance,
and since the main point of nuttcp is to measure TCP/UDP performance,
that would be contrary to its primary purpose. Also, I don't want to
rely on something that's not guaranteed to be part of the running kernel.
-Bill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists