[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1482348753.24490.14@smtp.office365.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:32:33 -0500
From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: <hannes@...essinduktion.org>, <kraigatgoog@...il.com>,
<eric.dumazet@...il.com>, <tom@...bertland.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5 net-next] inet: kill smallest_size and smallest_port
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:30 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
wrote:
> From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:07:01 -0500
>
>> In inet_csk_get_port we seem to be using smallest_port to figure
>> out where the
>> best place to look for a SO_REUSEPORT sk that matches with an
>> existing set of
>> SO_REUSEPORT's. However if we get to the logic
>>
>> if (smallest_size != -1) {
>> port = smallest_port;
>> goto have_port;
>> }
>>
>> we will do a useless search, because we would have already done the
>> inet_csk_bind_conflict for that port and it would have returned 1,
>> otherwise we
>> would have gone to found_tb and succeeded. Since this logic makes
>> us do yet
>> another trip through inet_csk_bind_conflict for a port we know
>> won't work just
>> delete this code and save us the time.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
>
> So the "all else being equal, use 'tb' with smallest socket count"
> logic
> wasn't being used at all?
>
> Instead of removing it why don't we make it work properly again?
> Something
> obviously broke it somewhere along the line, because I am pretty sure
> this
> heuristic worked at some point in the past.
Yeah as soon as we would find a tb with no bind conflicts we'd
immediately jump to found_tb: and subsequently exit, so if we did
manage to get to the point of checking smallest_size it would be
redundant as we would have had to hit a bind conflict for that port to
even reach that code.
How do you want me to add it back? The logic only kicked in if we were
SO_REUSEPORT with snum == 0, but Tom tells me that is basically
useless, so we've disallowed that behavior. Should we call a
bind_conflict() for every port and then go back and pick the one with
the smallest tb? That's a lot of scanning. Can you tell me what
behavior you desire and I'll add another patch to reintroduce it?
Thanks,
Josef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists