From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
borisp@nvidia.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, maximmi@nvidia.com,
tariqt@nvidia.com, vfedorenko@novek.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] tls: rx: don't consider sock_rcvtimeo() cumulative
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:42:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220728084244.7c654a6e@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e70b924a0a2ef69c4744a23862258ebb23b60907.camel@redhat.com>
On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:50:03 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> I have a possibly dumb question: this patch seems to introduce a change
> of behavior (timeo re-arming after every progress vs a comulative one),
> while re-reading the thread linked above it I (mis?)understand that the
> timeo re-arming is the current behavior?
>
> Could you please clarify/help me understand this better?
There're two places we use timeo - waiting for the exclusive reader
lock and waiting for data. Currently (net-next as of now) we behave
cumulatively in the former and re-arm in the latter.
That's to say if we have a timeo of 50ms, and spend 10ms on the lock,
the wait for each new data record must be shorter than 40ms.
Does that make more sense?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-28 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-27 3:15 [PATCH net-next 0/4] tls: rx: follow ups to rx work Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-27 3:15 ` [PATCH net-next 1/4] selftests: tls: handful of memrnd() and length checks Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-27 3:15 ` [PATCH net-next 2/4] tls: rx: don't consider sock_rcvtimeo() cumulative Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-28 13:50 ` Paolo Abeni
2022-07-28 15:42 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2022-07-28 15:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-07-28 20:04 ` Paolo Abeni
2022-07-27 3:15 ` [PATCH net-next 3/4] tls: strp: rename and multithread the workqueue Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-27 3:15 ` [PATCH net-next 4/4] tls: rx: fix the false positive warning Jakub Kicinski
2022-07-29 5:00 ` [PATCH net-next 0/4] tls: rx: follow ups to rx work patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220728084244.7c654a6e@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=borisp@nvidia.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=maximmi@nvidia.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=tariqt@nvidia.com \
--cc=vfedorenko@novek.ru \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).