On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 10:57 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Strange, because the usual way to not have time-wait is to use SO_LINGER > > with linger=0 > > > > And apparently xs_tcp_finish_connecting() has this : > > > > sock_reset_flag(sk, SOCK_LINGER); > > tcp_sk(sk)->linger2 = 0; > > Are you sure? I thought that SO_LINGER is more about controlling how > the socket behaves w.r.t. waiting for the TCP_CLOSE state to be > achieved (i.e. about aborting the FIN state negotiation early). I've > never observed an effect on the TCP time-wait states. Definitely this is standard way to avoid time-wait states. Maybe not very well documented. We probably should... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3757289/tcp-option-so-linger-zero-when-its-required > Yes. SO_REUSEADDR has the problem that it requires you bind to > something other than 0.0.0.0, so it is less appropriate for outgoing > connections; the RPC code really should not have to worry about > routing and routability of a particular source address. OK understood. Are you trying to reuse same 4-tuple ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
