Message ID | 1308104128.4578.10.camel@edumazet-laptop |
---|---|
State | Changes Requested, archived |
Delegated to: | David Miller |
Headers | show |
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 04:15 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > First packet received on a passive tcp flow is not correctly RFS > steered. > > One sock_rps_record_flow() call is missing in inet_accept() > > But before that, we also must record rxhash when child socket is setup. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> > CC: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com> > CC: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com> > CC: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@cyberus.ca> > --- > Netconf2011 workshop ;) > > net/ipv4/af_inet.c | 1 + > net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c > index 83673d2..0600f0f 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c > @@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ int inet_accept(struct socket *sock, struct socket *newsock, int flags) > > lock_sock(sk2); > > + sock_rps_record_flow(sk2); > WARN_ON(!((1 << sk2->sk_state) & > (TCPF_ESTABLISHED | TCPF_CLOSE_WAIT | TCPF_CLOSE))); > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c > index 617dee3..955b8e6 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c > @@ -1594,6 +1594,7 @@ int tcp_v4_do_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) > goto discard; > > if (nsk != sk) { > + sock_rps_save_rxhash(nsk, skb->rxhash); > if (tcp_child_process(sk, nsk, skb)) { > rsk = nsk; > goto reset; > I haven't tried this, but it looks reasonable to me. What about IPv6? The logic in tcp_v6_do_rcv() looks very similar. Ben.
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:50:46 +0100 > On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 04:15 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> @@ -1594,6 +1594,7 @@ int tcp_v4_do_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) >> goto discard; >> >> if (nsk != sk) { >> + sock_rps_save_rxhash(nsk, skb->rxhash); >> if (tcp_child_process(sk, nsk, skb)) { >> rsk = nsk; >> goto reset; >> > > I haven't tried this, but it looks reasonable to me. > > What about IPv6? The logic in tcp_v6_do_rcv() looks very similar. Indeed ipv6 side needs the same fix. Eric please add that part and resubmit. And in fact I might stick this into net-2.6 instead of net-next-2.6 Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c index 83673d2..0600f0f 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c +++ b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c @@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ int inet_accept(struct socket *sock, struct socket *newsock, int flags) lock_sock(sk2); + sock_rps_record_flow(sk2); WARN_ON(!((1 << sk2->sk_state) & (TCPF_ESTABLISHED | TCPF_CLOSE_WAIT | TCPF_CLOSE))); diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c index 617dee3..955b8e6 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c @@ -1594,6 +1594,7 @@ int tcp_v4_do_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) goto discard; if (nsk != sk) { + sock_rps_save_rxhash(nsk, skb->rxhash); if (tcp_child_process(sk, nsk, skb)) { rsk = nsk; goto reset;
First packet received on a passive tcp flow is not correctly RFS steered. One sock_rps_record_flow() call is missing in inet_accept() But before that, we also must record rxhash when child socket is setup. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> CC: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com> CC: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com> CC: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@cyberus.ca> --- Netconf2011 workshop ;) net/ipv4/af_inet.c | 1 + net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html