From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73C507A for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:29:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1654795793; x=1686331793; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=GNNcxrW8QPkfz8/DdhaJp74+Rzbyw8+Deqxl6rvjNBM=; b=IFJPiKeJ7Y2OxLfKEG1K/25XfW5dg5+vY6PMB1PasTOQbaOuXf/bnhgv 94FY1vpHSThoXhCLijDEa+Mwud6rkoxjxDz4VrLtngFvC1g2v6KVmgqqp 4DcxJVCDcDAFDiqarurM3ZCnk1NcfEUy2AMiaJzxhVnzmOOt5ykGzJeoc CAAT3tovbt30eFOZcxADBe7DMNIvKAuFkqAG9voNA2BLS/5ntX5lTA2ir Iyw48PNJNg/N64io4jcsMfZ3wx11wUKw1N9dYHCtwgs/QWTxNqX8hna6G EfCNFQm/RriTnRgwhW27Z//Aulnp0hTZq8YPdkWDPsPWqs6J/Mzb1gjc/ w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10373"; a="341433997" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,287,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="341433997" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jun 2022 10:29:52 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,287,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="616012515" Received: from stolud-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.212.124.13]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jun 2022 10:29:52 -0700 Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 10:29:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Mat Martineau To: Paolo Abeni cc: Geliang Tang , mptcp@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH mptcp-next v4 1/2] mptcp: refactor MP_FAIL response timeout In-Reply-To: <0bf29017a5a85214d3fe520288a731496c12df1e.camel@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4a6a3b-9a28-d2a-03c-23a211b76ab1@linux.intel.com> References: <0bf29017a5a85214d3fe520288a731496c12df1e.camel@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 9 Jun 2022, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 08:00 +0800, Geliang Tang wrote: >> mptcp_mp_fail_no_response shouldn't be invoked on each worker run, it >> should be invoked only when MP_FAIL response timeout occurs. >> >> This patch refactors the MP_FAIL response timeout logic. Add fail_tout >> in mptcp_sock to record the MP_FAIL timestamp. Check it in mptcp_worker() >> before invoking mptcp_mp_fail_no_response(). Drop the code to reuse >> sk_timer for MP_FAIL response. > > I'm sorry for not noticing it on the previous version - likely for the > lack of clarity on my side: we still need to start the timer for > mp_fail response: otherwise we are not assured that the mptcp_worker > will be triggered. > (capturing this on the mailing list in addition to the recent meeting) Yes, I agree. I saw that the timer stop calls were removed but missed the timer reset removal. It is imporant for the timer to still be started. > Additionally we need some more care to manipulate the timer reset. I > think it's easier if I send a squash-to patch - assuming I'll have some > time for that early next week. > Thanks Paolo! -- Mat Martineau Intel