Re: sendmsg blocking with sendtimeout vs. non-blocking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff Layton wrote:

  It sounds like what we should do for CIFS is the same thing. Set the
  buffer sizes but make sure the SOCK_*BUF_LOCK bits are cleared so that
  they can grow as needed.

You have to be careful about when you set them.  The old nfs code does it in
the wrong place, just before the first read.  That's too late.  You have to
do it just after accept().

  Does the kernel ever shrink these buffers?

Not now, but it could in the future.  Yet another reason this should be an
actual socket (or tcp) call with well defined semantics.

By the way, I'm pretty sure you never have to set sk_sndbuf, as the tcp code
will grow the send buffer as needed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux