[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101129133320.GA9759@ff.dom.local>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:33:20 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
Nagendra Tomar <tomer_iisc@...oo.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-next: Fix __inet_inherit_port() to correctly
increment bsockets and num_owners
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:17:46PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 29 novembre 2010 ?? 13:12 +0000, Jarek Poplawski a écrit :
>
> > Evgeniy & Eric,
Eric & Evgeniy ;-)
> > But it's compared to the numer of available port numbers in
> > inet_csk_get_port():
> >
> > "if (atomic_read(&hashinfo->bsockets) > (high - low) + 1)"
> >
> > Can't you have bsockets higher than this with only one port used?
> >
>
> Because we store tuples, not only port information.
>
> You can have many sockets bound on a single port.
>
> This 'optimization' was only meaningful on a machine you make only
> active connections, if you ask me...
That's what I've missed...
> Problem is, as soon as some passive connections are done, bsockets count
> becomes wrong. The patch fixes this, thats all.
Sure, the numbers are correct now. I wondered about this optimization
only.
Thanks for explanations,
Jarek P.
--
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