[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1340789014.2028.165.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:23:34 +0200
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hans.schillstrom@...csson.com,
subramanian.vijay@...il.com, dave.taht@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, ncardwell@...gle.com, therbert@...gle.com,
mph@...h.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: avoid tx starvation by SYNACK packets
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 10:45 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 10:21 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> > It works because we have a spinlock problem in the code... Perhaps, they
> > did it, because we have have locking/contention problem, not the other
> > way around ;-) How about fixing the code instead? ;-)))
>
> The socket lock is currently mandatory.
>
> It's really _hard_ to remove it, your attempts added a lot of races.
Yes, its really hard to remove completely. That's why I choose _only_
to handle the SYN cookie "overload" case, and leave the rest locked, and
I also introduced extra locking in the latest patches. I know it was
not perfect, hence the RFC tag, but I hope I didn't add that many races.
> I want to do it properly, adding needed RCU and array of spinlocks were
> appropriate.
I really appreciate that you will attempt to fix this properly. Like a
real network ninja ;-).
--
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