From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=C5=BBenczykowski?= Subject: Re: Add a SOCK_DESTROY operation to close sockets from userspace Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:12:25 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20151119.005318.838757439536205791.davem@davemloft.net> <20151119.104811.1447518072450380661.davem@davemloft.net> <1447949964.22599.220.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: David Miller , Lorenzo Colitti , hannes@stressinduktion.org, stephen@networkplumber.org, Linux NetDev , Eric Dumazet , ek@google.com, dtor@google.com To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail-lf0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:34120 "EHLO mail-lf0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759389AbbKTAM1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2015 19:12:27 -0500 Received: by lffu14 with SMTP id u14so59087185lff.1 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:12:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1447949964.22599.220.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Having comments like "look, just implement application keepalives" is > not going to work [1][2]. This is terrible, and show lack of > understanding of the problem. We are not dealing with DC communications > here. (I wish !) There's a 3rd reason: keepalives (tcp or application) are actually undesirable because they burn through your battery. It's far better to do keepalives on one dedicated connection and kill all the other non keepalive connections if you determine via that one that the network is bad (or if you have some other signals about network badness).