[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A969566.3070606@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:17:10 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Li_Xin2@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TCP keepalive timer problem
Andi Kleen a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes:
>> Now, 7200 seconds might be inappropriate for special needs, and considering
>> there is no way to change tcp_retries2 for a given socket (only choice being the global
>> tcp_retries2 setting), I would vote for a change in our stack, to *relax* RFC,
>> and get smaller keepalive timers if possible.
>
> I think the better fix would be to just to only do that when
> tcp_retries2 > keep alive time. So keep the existing behaviour
> with default keep alive, but switch when the user defined
> a very short keep alive.
>
tcp_retries2 is a number of retries, its difficult to derive a time from it.
Also, it's not clear what behavior you are refering to.
Imagine we can be smart and compute tcp_retries2_time (in jiffies) from tcp_retries2
If keepalive_timer fires and we have packets in flight, what heuristic do you suggest ?
if (tp->packets_out || tcp_send_head(sk))
if (tcp_retries2_time < keepalive_time_when(tp))
goto resched;
elapsed = tcp_time_stamp - tp->rcv_tstamp;
...
What would be the gain ?
Arming timer exactly every keepalive_time_when(tp)
instead of keepalive_time_when(tp) - (tcp_time_stamp - tp->rcv_tstamp) ?
--
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