From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: avoid tx starvation by SYNACK packets Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:51:36 +0200 Message-ID: <1340686296.10893.115.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1338615992.2760.1665.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1340440962.17495.39.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20120625.154340.158890441165257041.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: subramanian.vijay@gmail.com, dave.taht@gmail.com, hans.schillstrom@ericsson.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ncardwell@google.com, therbert@google.com, brouer@redhat.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:54750 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751416Ab2FZEvm (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:51:42 -0400 Received: by weyu7 with SMTP id u7so3287894wey.19 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:51:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120625.154340.158890441165257041.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 15:43 -0700, David Miller wrote: > I don't agree with this change. > > What is the point in having real classification configuration if > arbitrary places in the network stack are going to override SKB > priority with a fixed priority setting? > > I bet the person who set listening socket priority really meant it and > does not expect you to override it. If I add a test on listener_sk->sk_priority being 0, would you accept the patch ? If classification is done after tcp stack, it wont be hurt by initial skb priority ? instead of : /* SYNACK sent in SYNCOOKIE mode have low priority */ skb->priority = nocache ? TC_PRIO_FILLER : sk->sk_priority; Having : /* SYNACK sent in SYNCOOKIE mode have low priority */ skb->priority = (nocache && !sk->sk_priority) ? TC_PRIO_FILLER : sk->sk_priority;