Jason Baron writes:
> On 11/19/2015 06:52 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -1590,21 +1718,35 @@ restart:
>> goto out_unlock;
>> }
>>
>> -if (unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other)) {
>> -if (!timeo) {
>> +if (unlikely(unix_peer(
On 11/19/2015 06:52 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
[...]
> @@ -1590,21 +1718,35 @@ restart:
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> - if (unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_full(other)) {
> - if (!timeo) {
> + if (unlikely(unix_peer(other) != sk && unix_recvq_fu
An AF_UNIX datagram socket being the client in an n:1 association with
some server socket is only allowed to send messages to the server if the
receive queue of this socket contains at most sk_max_ack_backlog
datagrams. This implies that prospective writers might be forced to go
to sleep despite no
Rainer Weikusat writes:
> Rainer Weikusat writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> The basic options would be
>>
>> - return EAGAIN even if sending became possible (Jason's most
>> recent suggestions)
>>
>> - retry sending a limited number of times, eg, once, before
>> returning EAGAI
David Miller writes:
> From: Rainer Weikusat
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:28:40 +
>
>> An AF_UNIX datagram socket being the client in an n:1
[...]
> So because of a corner case of epoll handling and sender socket release,
> every single datagram sendmsg has to do a double lock now?
>
> I do
Rainer Weikusat writes:
[...]
> This leaves only the option of a somewhat incorrect solution and what is
> or isn't acceptable in this respect is somewhat difficult to decide. The
> basic options would be
[...]
> - retry sending a limited number of times, eg, once, before
> retu
Rainer Weikusat writes:
[...]
> The basic options would be
>
> - return EAGAIN even if sending became possible (Jason's most
> recent suggestions)
>
> - retry sending a limited number of times, eg, once, before
> returning EAGAIN, on the grounds that this is nicer
David Miller writes:
> From: Rainer Weikusat
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:28:40 +
>
>> An AF_UNIX datagram socket being the client in an n:1 association with
>> some server socket is only allowed to send messages to the server if the
>> receive queue of this socket contains at most sk_max_ack_
From: Rainer Weikusat
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:28:40 +
> An AF_UNIX datagram socket being the client in an n:1 association with
> some server socket is only allowed to send messages to the server if the
> receive queue of this socket contains at most sk_max_ack_backlog
> datagrams. This impl
On 11/16/2015 05:28 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> An AF_UNIX datagram socket being the client in an n:1 association with
> some server socket is only allowed to send messages to the server if the
> receive queue of this socket contains at most sk_max_ack_backlog
> datagrams. This implies that pros
An AF_UNIX datagram socket being the client in an n:1 association with
some server socket is only allowed to send messages to the server if the
receive queue of this socket contains at most sk_max_ack_backlog
datagrams. This implies that prospective writers might be forced to go
to sleep despite no
11 matches
Mail list logo
