> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cifs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cifs- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Long Li > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 7:30 PM > To: Tom Talpey <ttalpey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steve French <sfrench@xxxxxxxxx>; > linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; samba-technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [[PATCH v1] 25/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Support SMBD idle connection > timer > > [This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they appear > to be. Learn about spoofing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSpoofing] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Talpey > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 2:12 PM > > To: Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steve French <sfrench@xxxxxxxxx>; > > linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; samba-technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: RE: [[PATCH v1] 25/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Support SMBD idle connection > > timer > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-cifs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cifs- > > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Long Li > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:11 PM > > > To: Steve French <sfrench@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > samba- technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Cc: Long Li <longli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: [[PATCH v1] 25/37] [CIFS] SMBD: Support SMBD idle connection > > > timer > > > > > > +static int keep_alive_interval = 120; > > > > This is the recommended value, but not the only possibility. > > > > > @@ -1348,6 +1369,10 @@ struct cifs_rdma_info* > > cifs_create_rdma_session( > > > init_waitqueue_head(&info->wait_send_queue); > > > init_waitqueue_head(&info->wait_reassembly_queue); > > > > > > + INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&info->idle_timer_work, > > idle_connection_timer); > > > + schedule_delayed_work(&info->idle_timer_work, > > > + info->keep_alive_interval*HZ); > > > + > > > > This initialization is ok, but the timer should be rescheduled (extended) any > > time any packet is sent. There is no need to perform keepalives on an active > > SMB Direct connection. > > My feeling is that rescheduling on a work queue for every packet is sent is not > efficient, especially under heavy conditions. That's not what I was suggesting. Cant the timer simply be re-extended to the 120-second interval? I.e. on an active connection, it will never fire because it's always advancing. As defined here, it will go off and send a keepalive every 120 seconds. The idle_connection_timer() routine unconditionally sends it. > > Firing it every 120 seconds doesn't seem to be big waste and may actually save > some CPU. Firing the timer, no big deal. Sending the packets and requiring the peer to process them too, disagree. Tom. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
